THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 

From  the  Library 
of  the 

Diocese  of  Springfield 
Protestant  Episcopal 
Church 

Presented  1917 

270 

R54V, 


CENTRAL  CIRCULATION  BOOKSTACKS 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  re¬ 
sponsible  for  its  renewal  or  its  return  to 
the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped 
below.  You  may  be  charged  a  minimum 
fee  of  $75.00  for  each  lost  book. 

mutilation,  and  underllnlns  of  books  ore  reasons 
—  -*  rose.,  in  d.sm.ssol  front 

TO  RENEw'cAU  TELEPHONE  CENTER.  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


FEB  1 5  199ft 

1 4 198! 


When  renewing  by  phone,  write  new  due  date  below 
previous  due  date. 


% 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/historyofchristi07robe_0 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 


HISTORY 


OF  THE 


CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 

FROM  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE  TO  THE  REFORMATION. 

A.D.  64-1517. 


BY  JAMES  C.  ROBERTSON,  M.A., 

CANON  OF  CANTERBURY, 

AND  PROFESSOR  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY  IN  KING’S  COLLEGE,  LONDON. 


A  NEW  AND  REVISED  EDITION. 


IN  EIGHT  VOLUMES. — VOL.  VII. 


POTT,  YOUNG,  AND  CO.,  COOPER  UNION, 

NEW  YORK. 

1874. 


[  The  right  0/  Translation  is  reserved .] 


1  $9r  ■! 


R  S^rh 

V/7 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL,  VII. 


List  of  Popes,  Sovereigns,  etc. 


BOOK  VIII. 


Page  xiii 


FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  POPE  BONIFACE  VIII.  TO  THE  END  OF 
THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE,  A.D.  1303-1418. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Benedict  XI.  and  Clement  V.,  a.d.  1303-13. 


Page  | 

Election  of  Benedict  XI.  .  1 

His  concessions  to  Philip  the 
Fair  ....  2 

His  death  ....  6 

Flection  of  Clement  V.  .  7 

The  Papacy  fixed  at  Avignon  1 1 

Clement’s  subserviency  to 
Philip  .  .  .  .12 

Persecution  of  Boniface’s 
memory  .  .  .  13 

Philip’s  financial  difficulties  15 

Order  of  the  Temple  .  .  16 

Arrest  of  the  F rench  Templars  22 

Examination  of  the  Master 
and  others  .  .  25 

Papal  Bulls.  ...  26 

Examinations  before  a  com¬ 
mission  ....  ib. 

Council  of  the  Province  of  Sens  31 

Burning  of  fifty-four  Templars  32 

Examinations  continued  .  33 

inquiry  into  the  truth  of  the 

charges  .  .  .  .34 

The  Templars  in  the  British 
Islands  .  .  .  .47 


I  .  Page 

The  Templars  in  other  coun¬ 
tries  .  ,  .  -5i 

Vacancy  in  the  Empire  .  53 

Henry  VII.  ...  56 

Question  of  Boniface’s  memory 
resumed  ....  ib. 

Council  of  Vienne  .  .  61 

Durandus  the  younger  on  Re¬ 
form  ....  62 

Dissolution  of  the  Order  of 
the  Temple  ...  64 

Death  of  the  Grand  Master  67 

Henry  VII.  in  Italy  .  .  69 

His  Coronation  at  Rome  .  72 

Difficulties  with  Robert  of 
Naples  and  with  the  Pope  73 

Death  of  Henry  ...  75 

Dante’s  treatise  4  Of  Mon¬ 
archy  ’  .  .  .  .76 

Clement  V.  and  the  Vene¬ 
tians  78 

His  death  ....  80 

Last  years  and  death  of  Philip 
the  Fair  .  .  .  .  ib. 


Vlll 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  II. 

From  the  Death  of  Pope  Clement  V.  to  that  of  the  Em¬ 
peror  Lewis  IV.,  a.d.  1313-47. 


Page 

Delay  in  election  of  a  Pope  .  82 

Lewis  X.  of  France — Philip 

V . 83 

Election  of  John  XXII.  .  85 

His  relations  with  the  French 
sovereigns  ...  86 

Persecutions  of  sorcerers, 
lepers,  and  Jews  .  .  87 

Pastoureaux  ...  90 

John’s  disputes  with  the  Fran¬ 
ciscans  .  .  .  .  91 

Election  of  rival  kings  of  the 
Romans  ....  95 

Italy — Matthew  Visconti  — 
Robert  of  Naples  .  .  96 

John’s  denunciation  of  Lewis 
IV.  ....  98 

William  of  Ockham  .  .102 

The  Defensor  Pads  .  .104 

Extreme  papalist  writers  .  107 

Intrigues  against  Lewis  .  108 

Reconciliation  between  Lewis 
and  Frederick  .  .  .109 

Italian  expedition  of  Lewis  .  no 
1 1  is  coronation  at  Rome  .  112 

Nicolas  V.  antipope  .  .  1 1 5 


Page 

Lewis  withdraws  from  Italy.  1 1 7 
Submission  of  the  antipope  .  118 

John,  king  of  Bohemia  .  120 

Philip  of  Valois,  king  of 
France  .  .  .122 

John  XXII.  on  the  Beatific 
Vision  .  .  .  .123 

His  death  .  .  .  .125 

Benedict  XII.  .  .  .  126 

His  relations  with  Philip  .  130 

Decision  as  to  the  Beatific 
Vision  ....  131 

Negotiations  with  Lewis  .  ib. 
Meeting  at  Rhense  .  .134 

Alliance  between  Lewis  and 
Edward  III.  .  .  .  135 

Divorce  and  re-marriage  of 
Margaret  Maultasch .  .  137 

Death  of  Benedict — Election 
of  Clement  VI.  .  .138 

Clement’s  policy  towards 
Lewis  ....  141 

Charles  of  Moravia  set  up  as 
Emperor  .  .  .  .146 

Death  of  Lewis  .  .  .  148 


CHAPTER  III. 

Joanna  of  Naples — Rienzi — Last  Years  of  Clement  VI., 

a.d.  1343-52. 


I.  Marriage  of  Joanna  with 

Andrew  of  Hungary  .  148 

Murder  of  Andrew  .  150 

Sale  of  Avignon  to  the 
pope  .  .  .151 

II.  State  of  Rome  .  .152 

Rienzi  .  .  .154 

III.  The  Black  Death.  .  161 


Persecution  of  Jews  .  164 

Flagellants  .  .  .165 

Clement  defends  the 
mendicant  orders  .  166 

IV.  Charles  IV.  established 

in  the  empire  .  .167 

V.  Jubilee  of  1350  .  .  170 

Death  of  Clement  VI.  .  172 


CONTENTS. 


IX 


CHAPTER  IV. 


From  the  Election  of  Pope  Innocent  VI.  to  the  Death  of 

Gregory  XI.,  a.d.  1352-78. 


Election  of  Innocent  VI. 

His  reforms 

Italy — Archbishop  John  Vis¬ 
conti  .... 
Free  Companies  . 

Rome — Senatorship  and  death 
of  Rienzi .... 
Coronation  of  Charles  IV.  as 
Emperor  .... 
The  Golden  Bull . 

Urban  V. 

Bernabo  Visconti 
Urban  removes  to  Rome 


Page 

172 

17.3 

175 

176 

178 

180 

182 

183 

185 

186 


Page 

His  return  to  Avignon  and 
death  ....  190 

Gregory  XI.  .  .  .191 

Massacre  of  Cesena  .  .192 

Florence  put  under  ban  .  193 

Gregory  removes  to  Rome — 

End  of  the  “  Babylonian 
Captivity”  .  .  .194 

Death  of  Gregory  .  .196 

Affairs  of  Florence  .  .  197 

Wenceslaus  chosen  king  of 
the  Romans  .  .  .  ib. 

Treaty  as  to  Sicily  .  .  198 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Great  Schism  of  the  West,  to  the  End  of  the  Council 

of  Pisa,  a.d.  1378-1409. 


Election  of  Urban  VI.  .  199 

His  unpopularity  .  .  205 

Rival  election  of  Clement 

VII . 208 

Beginning  of  the  Great  Schism  209 
Clement  settles  at  Avignon  .  213 

Naples — Charles  of  Durazzo 
and  Lewis  of  Anjou  .  .  ib. 

Death  of  Joanna  I.  .  .  215 

Urban  at  Naples  and  at 
Nocera  ....  216 

He  escapes  to  Genoa  .•  .  219 

Affairs  of  Hungary  .  .221 

Death  of  Urban  .  .  .  222 

Attempts  to  end  the  Schism  ib. 
Boniface  IX.  .  .  .  223 

Exactions  of  the  rival  popes  .  ib. 
Jubilee  of  1390  .  .  .  227 

Jubilee  of  1400  .  .  .  228 

The  University  of  Paris  011 
the  Schism  .  .  .  229 

Death  of  Clement  VII.  .  230 


Benedict  XIII.  .  .  .  231 

French  movement — Mission 
to  Avignon  .  .  .  232 

Meeting  of  Wenceslaus  and 
Charles  VI.  .  .  .  234 

France  withdraws  from  Bene¬ 
dict  . 235 

Rupert  king  of  the  Romans  .  237 

Benedict  again  owned  by 
France  ....  239 

Death  of  Boniface  IX. — Inno¬ 
cent  VII.  .  .  .  240 

Gregory  XII.  .  .  .  243 

N egotiations  between  Gregory 
and  Benedict  .  .  .  ib. 

France  again  rejects  Benedict  246 
Council  of  Pisa  summoned  .  247 

Rival  councils  under  Gregory 
and  Benedict  .  .  .  250 

John  Gerson  .  .  .251 

Council  of  Pisa  .  .  .252 

Election  of  Alexander  V.  .  256 


X 


CONTEXTS. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
Wyclif. 


Page 

Antipapal  spirit  of  England  .  257 

Richard  Fitzralph  .  .  262 

John  Wyclif  .  .  .  263 

*He  opposes  payment  of  tribute 
to  Rome  ....  265 

John  of  Gaunt — William  of 
Wykeham  .  .  .  266 

Conference  at  Bruges  .  .  267 

Wyclif  at  Lutterworth  .  268 

Scene  in  St.  Paul’s,  London  269 
Council  at  Lambeth  .  .272 

Attacks  on  the  mendicant 
orders  .  .  .  *274 

Translation  of  the  Scriptures 
into  English  .  .  .276 


Wyclif  against  transubstanti- 
ation  .... 
Wat  Tyler’s  insurrection 
Courtenay,  archbishop — Fur¬ 
ther  proceedings  against 
Wyclif  . 

The  ‘Trialogue’. 

Death  of  Wyclif  . 

FI  is  opinions 
The  Lollards 

Statute  for  burning  of  heretics 
William  Sautre  . 

Lord  Cobham 

Disappearance  of  Lollardism 


Page 

278 

280 


282 

286 

289 

290 

295 

297 

298 

300 

301 


CHAPTER  VII. 
Bohemia. 


Reforming  tendencies  in  Bo 


hernia  .  .  .  .301 

Conrad  of  Waldhausen  .  302 

Militz  of  Kremsier  .  .  303 

Mathias  of  Janow  .  .  305 

Intercourse  with  England  .  307 

J  ohn  Hus  ....  3°& 

He  attacks  the  clergy  .  .  310 

Miracle  of  Wilsnaclc  .  .  31 1 

Jerome  of  Prague  .  .  313 

Wyclif’s  opinions  condemned 
at  Prague  .  .  •  3J5 


Change  in  constitution  of  the 
University  .  .  .316 

Fresh  charges  against  IIus  .  317 

Burning  of  Wyclif’s  books  .  319 

Hus  excommunicated  .  .321 

Bull  for  a  crusade  against 
Ladislaus  of  Naples  .  .  323 

Commotions  at  Prague  .  324 

Hus  withdraws  from  Prague  327 
His  treatise  on  the  Church  .  328 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


From  the  Election  of  Pope  Alexander  V.  to  the  end  of 
the  Council  of  Constance,  a.d.  1409-18. 


Alexander  V.  329 

His  bull  for  the  mendicant 
orders  .  .’  .  .  33 1 

[ohn  XXIII.  .  .  .  333 


His  relations  with  Ladislaus  335 
Gregory  XII.  retires  to  Ri¬ 
mini  ....  ib. 
Council  at  Rome .  .  .  336 


CONTENTS. 


xi 


Page 

John  driven  from  Rome  .  337 

Sigismund,  king  of  the  Ro¬ 
mans  ....  ib. 
A  general  council  summoned  339 
Death  of  Ladislaus  .  .  340 

Writings  in  behalf  of  reform  341 
Meeting  of  the  Council  of 
Constance  .  .  .  344 

Arrival  of  Sigismund  .  .  347 

Sermon  by  Cardinal  d’ Ailly .  ib. 
Right  of  voting  in  the  council  348 
Charges  against  Pope  John  .  350 

Hus  sets  out  for  Constance  .  351 

His  arrival  and  imprisonment  353 
Flight  of  Pope  John  .  .  359 

Gerson  on  the  Papacy  .  .  360 


Page 

John  cited  and  suspended  .  363 

His  deposition  and  later  his¬ 
tory  .  .  .  .367 

Trial  and  burning  of  Hus  .  368 

- Jerome 

of  Prague  .  .  .  380 

Resignation  of  Gregory  XII.  385 
Dealings  with  Benedict  XIII.  386 
Difficulties  of  the  Council  .  389 

Election  of  Martin  V.  .  .  395 

Designs  of  reform  frustrated  .  397 

Concordats  with  the  nations.  398 
Affair  of  John  Petit  .  .  400 

Affair  of  J  ohn  of  Falkenberg  402 
End  of  the  Council  .  .  403 

Last  years  of  Gerson  .  .  404 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Greek  Church— Christianity  in  Asia — Conversions. 


I.  Relations  of  Greek  and 

Latin  Churches  .  .  405 

Mission  of  Barlaam  to 
Avignon  .  .  .  407 

His  controversies  with  the 
Hesychasts,  etc.  .  .  409 

John  Cantacuzene  .  .  410  i 


John  Palmologus  . 

412 

Crusade  in  Hungary 

413 

Manuel 

414 

II. 

Armenia 

415 

III. 

Christianity  in  Asia 

416 

IV. 

Conversion  of  Lithuania 

4i7 

CHAPTER  X. 
Sectaries — Mystics. 


I.  Cathari  .  .  .419 

Waldenses  .  .  .  ib. 

II.  Beghards  .  .  .421 

III.  The  Inquisition  .  .  422 

Witchcraft  .  .  .  423 

IV.  Flagellancy  .  .  .  424 

V.  The  age  favourable  to 

Mysticism  .  .  428 


The  “Friends  of  God”  ib. 


Nicolas  of  Basel  . 

431 

Eckhart  .... 

432 

Tauler  .... 

434 

The  ‘  German  Theology  ’ — 

Ruysbroek 

441 

Gerson  .... 

442 

The  £  Imitation  of  Christ  ’  . 

ib. 

Mysticism  and  Lutheranism . 

443 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Supplementary. 

I.  The  Hierarchy  .  .  444  (2.)  The  Empire .  .  .  446 

(1.)  Gains  and  losses  of  the  France  and  the  Papacy  447 

Papacy  .  .  .  ib. 


CONTENTS. 


Xll 


(3.)  Completion  of  the  Canon 
Law .... 
(4.)  Papal  exactions  . 

Resistance  of  England  . 
And  of  other  countries  . 
(5.)  Clerical  privileges  re¬ 
strained 

(6.)  The  papacy  and  the  epis¬ 
copate 

(7.)  System  of  commendation 
(8.)  Restraints  on  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  wealth. 

(9.)  Chapters 

(10.)  Complaints  against  the 
clergy 

Cries  for  reform  . 

II.  Monasticism 
(1.)  New  orders  . 

(2.)  Decay  of  discipline 
(3.)  Commendams 
(4.)  Exemptions  . 

(5.)  The  mendicant  orders  . 


Page 

447 

449 

45i 

455 

ib. 

461 

462 

464 

466 

467 

470 

471 

ib. 

472 

474 

ib. 

476 


III.  Rites  and  UsaCxES 
(1.)  Continuation  of  former 

tendencies 

(2.)  Festival  ofCorpus  Christi 
Communion  in  one  kind 
(3.)  Indulgences . 

(4.)  Ecclesiastical  censures  . 
(5.)  Multiplication  of  festivals 
The  immaculate  concep¬ 
tion  . 

IV.  Arts  and  Learning 
(1.)  Architecture. 

Painting  and  Sculpture 
(2.)  Universities  . 

(3.)  Oriental  studies  —  Nico 
las  de  Lyra 

(4.)  Study  of  Greek  and  Latii 
(5.)  Scholasticism 
(6.)  Infidel  philosophy 
(7.)  Casuistry  and  other 
studies 

(8.)  Vernacular  literature 


Page 

481 


ib. 

ib. 

482 

4^3 

484 

485 

4S7 

ib. 

ib. 

ib. 

488 

489 

492 

493 

494 

495 

496 


LIST  OF  POPES  SOVEREIGNS,  ETC. 


Popes. 


A.  D.  A.D. 

1303.  Benedict  XI.  .  .  1304 

1305.  Clement  V.  .  .  1314 

1316.  John  XXII. 

[Nicolas  V.  antip.  1328-9.] 
1334.  Benedict  XII. 

Line  of  Rome. 

1378.  Urban  VI. 

1389.  Boniface  IX. 

1404.  Innocent  VII. 

1406.  Gregory  XII. 

(resigned)  .  .  1415 


A.D.  A.D. 

1342.  Clement  VI. 

1352.  Innocent  VI. 

1362.  Urban  V. 

1370.  Gregory  XI. 

Line  of  Avignon. 

1378.  Clement  VII. 

1394.  Benedict  XIII. 

deposed  .  .  1417 

died  .  .  .  1424 


Line  of  the  Council  of  Pisa. 


1409.  Alexander  V. 


1410.  John  XXIII. 
deposed 


1415 


Elected  by  the  Council  of  Constance. 

1417.  Martin  V . .  1431 


Eastern  Emperors. 


1282.  Andronicus  II. 

1332.  Andronicus  III. 

1341.  John  I.  Palseologus  .  1 391 


1341.  J ohn  Cantacuzene  (ab¬ 
dicated)  .  .  1355 

1391.  Manuel  .  .  .  1425 


Emperors  and  Kings  of  the  Romans. 


Election. 

Coronation  as 
Emperor. 

1298. 

A.D. 

I308. 

1312. 

I314.* 

j  1328-f 

I346.J 

1355- 

1373. 

1400. 

I4IO. 

1433- 

*  Rival  Elections. 

Albert  I. 

Henry  VII. . 1313 

Lewis  IV.  ......  1347 

Frederick  of  Austria  [withdrew]  .  .  1325 

Charles  IV. 

[Giinther  of  Schwarzburg,  1349.] 
Wenceslaus  [deposed] 

Rupert 

Sigismund  .  .  .  .  .  .1437 

t  Crowned  by  an  antipope. 

Elected  during  the  lifetime  of  his  predecessor,  and  in  opposition  to  him. 


XIV 


LIST  OF  POPES,  SOVEREIGNS,  ETC. 


Kings  of  France. 


1285.  Philip  IV.  (the  Fair) 
1314.  Lewis  X.  (Hutin) 

1316.  Philip  V.  (the  Long) 
1322.  Charles  IV. 

Kings 

1272.  Edward  I. 

1307.  Edward  II. 

1327.  Edward  III. 


1328.  Philip  VI.  (of  Valois) 
135°.  John 

1364.  Charles  V.  (the  Wise) 
1380.  Charles  VI. 

England. 

1 377*  Richard  II. 

1399.  Henry  IV. 

1413.  Henry  V. 


Kings  of  Scotland. 


1306.  Robert  I. 

1329.  David  II. 

[1331.  Edward  Baliol,  1342] 


1371.  Robert  II. 
1390.  Robert  III. 


1291.  James  II. 
1327.  Alfonso  IV. 
1336.  Peter  IV. 
1387.  John  I. 


Kings  of  Aragon. 

1395.  Martin 
1412.  P'erdinand  I. 
1416.  Alfonso  V. 


Kings  of  Castile. 


1295.  Ferdinand  IV. 

1312.  Alfonso  XL 
1350.  Peter  (the  Cruel) 

1368.  Henry  II.  (the  Magnificent) 


1379-  John  I. 
1390.  Henry  III. 
1406.  John  II.  . 


1300.  Charobert 
1342.  Lewis  I. 


Kings  of  Hungary. 

1382.  Mary 
1392.  Sigismund 


Kings  of  Bohemia. 


1278.  Wenceslaus  IV. 

1305.  Wenceslaus  V. 

1306.  Henry 
1310.  John 


1346.  Charles  I.  (Emperor 
Charles  IV.) 

1378.  Wenceslaus  VI.  (em¬ 
peror)  . 


1285.  Charles  II. 
1309.  Robert 
1343.  Joanna  I. 


Kings  of  Natles. 

1382.  Charles  III. 
1387.  Ladislaus 
1414.  Joanna  II, 


A.D. 


1422 


1422 


1424 


I4IO 

I45S 


1454 


1437 


1410 


1455 


LIST  OF  POPES,  SOVEREIGNS,  ETC. 


XV 


Sultans  of  the  Turks. 


A.D.  A.D. 

1299.  Othman 
1326.  Orkan 
1360.  Amurath  I. 

1389.  Bajazet  I.  (dethroned) 


A.D. 

1402.  Solyman  I. 
1410.  Musa 
1413.  Mahomet  I. 


A.D. 


Archbishops  of  Canterbury. 


1294.  Robert  Winchelsey 
1313.  Walter  Reynolds  .  1327 

1328.  Simon  Mepham 
1 333*  John  Stratford  .  .  1348 

1349.  Thomas  Bradwardine 
1349.  Simon  Islip 


1366.  Simon  Langham  (re¬ 
signed) 

1368.  William  Whittlesey  .  1374 

1 375.  Simon  Sudbury 

1381.  William  Courtenay  .  139b 

1 397*  Thomas  Arundel 

1414.  Henry  Chicheley  .  1443 


Archbishops  of  Mentz. 


1289.  Gerard  II.  of  Eppen- 

stein  .  .  .  1305 

1306.  Peter  of  Aichspalt  .  1320 

1321.  Matthias,  Count  of 
Bucheck 

1328.  Henry  III.,  Count  of 
Virneburg  (deposed) 
[1328-37.  Baldwin,  abp.  of  Treves, 
administrator.  ] 

1346.  Gerlach,  Count  of 
Nassau 


1371..  John  I.,  Count  of  Lux¬ 
emburg 

1373.  Lewis,  Margrave  of 
M  eissen  ( t  r  a  n  s  - 
lated) 

1381.  Adolphus  I.,  Count 
of  N  assau 

1390.  Conrad  II.  ofWein- 

sperg  .  .  .139b 

1 397*  J°hn  II. ,  Count  of 

Nassau  ,  .  1419 


HISTORY 


OF 

THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 


BOOK  VIII. 

FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  POPE  BONIFACE  VIII.  TO 
THE  END  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE, 
A.D.  I303-I418. 


CHAPTER  I. 

BENEDICT  XI.  AND  CLEMENT  V. 

A.D.  1303- 1313. 

The  state  of  affairs  at  the  death  of  Boniface  VIII.  was 
such  as  might  well  fill  the  chiefs  of  the  Roman  church 
with  anxiety.  The  late  pope  had  provoked  the  most 
powerful  sovereign  in  Christendom,  had  uttered  sen¬ 
tences  of  excommunication  and  deposition  against  him, 
and  had  fallen  a  victim  to  his  enmity.  Philip  had  been 
supported  in  the  contest  by  the  prelates  and  clergy,  the 
nobles  and  the  commonalty  of  the  realm ;  and  while  such 
were  the  relations  between  the  Roman  see  and  France, 
Boniface  had  also  seriously  offended  the  rulers  of  some 
other  countries.  Was,  then,  his  policy  to  be  carried  out 
VOL.  VII.  I 


2 


BENEDICT  XI. 


Book  VIII 


by  his  successor  in  defiance  of  all  the  fearful  risks  which 
beset  such  a  course,  or  was  the  papacy  to  endure  sub¬ 
missively  the  indignities  which  had  been  inflicted  on  it? 

In  the  conclave  which  met  at  Perugia  for  the  election 
of  a  pope,  the  influence  of  the  Orsini  family  was  predomi¬ 
nant.  On  the  23rd  of  November — eleven  days  after  the 
death  of  Boniface — the  choice  of  the  cardinals  fell  on 
Nicolas  Bocassini,  bishop  of  Ostia,  who  took  the  name  of 
Benedict,  and  was  at  first  reckoned  as  the  tenth  of  that 
name,  but  was  eventually  styled  the  eleventh.11  He  was 
a  native  of  Treviso,  and  was  of  very  humble  origin  ; b  he 
had  been  general  of  the  Dominican  order  ;  had  been  pro¬ 
moted  to  the  cardinalate  by  Boniface,  who  employed  him 
on  important  missions  to  England  and  other  countries;0 
and  he  had  been  one  of  the  few  who  stood  faithfully  by 
his  patron  throughout  the  outrages  of  Anagni.  But  if 
Benedict’s  principles  agreed  with  those  of  Boniface,  his 
character  was  mild  and  conciliatory,  and  his  policy  was 
sincerely  directed  to  the  work  of  reconciling  the  spiritual 
with  the  temporal  power. d 

In  congratulating  Benedict  on  his  election,  Philip  the 
Fair  expressed  a  hope  that  he  would  redress  the  wrongs 
which  his  predecessor  had  committed  against  France.0 
But  it  was  needless  to  urge  such  a  request ;  the  pope, 
without  waiting  to  be  entreated,  hastened  to  restore  the 
“  lost  sheep  to  the  fold,1  by  releasing  the  king  from  his 
excommunication.  He  annulled  all  acts  which  might  be 


a  Schrockh,  xxxi.  6.  Benedict  X. 
(a.d.  1058)  had  been  an  antipope. 

b  G.  Villani,  viii.  66  (Murat,  xiii.). 
It  is  related  that  when  his  mother  (who 
is  said  to  have  got  her  living  by  wash¬ 
ing  and  mending  the  twiicellce  of  the 
Dominicans  —  Henr.  Hervord.  221) 
visited  him  in  a  silk  dress,  lie  refused 
to  acknowledge  her  until  she  put  on 
the  humbler  attire  in  which  he  had 
been  accustomed  to  see  her.  Antonin, 
iii.  263. 


c  Ferret.  Vicent.  in  Murat,  ix.  100. 
d  G.  Villani,  viii.  66. 
e  Dupuy,  Preuves,  205-6. 
f  “  Numquid  igitur  te,  etiam  sinolles, 
non  cogemus  intrare?  numquid  tantam 
ovem  quanta  tu  es,  sic  nobilcm,  praeci- 
puam  et  praeclaram,  relinquemus,  quin 
impositam  nostris  humeris  reduca- 
mus  ?  ”  Dupuy,  iii.  207  (April  2, 
1304).  Cf.  Walsingh.  i.  106;  Mansi 
in  Raynald.  iv.  376. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1303-4.  CONCESSIONS  TO  PHILIP. 


3 


to  the  prejudice  of  the  French  crown  or  nation,  and  re¬ 
voked  all  sentences  which  had  been  incurred  by  neglect  of 
Boniface’s  citations  to  Rome,  or  by  forbidding  obedience 
to  those  citations.^  He  repealed  or  suspended  various 
decrees  of  the  late  pope,  on  the  ground  that  they  had  been 
made  without  the  advice  of  the  cardinals.11  He  restored 
to  the  French  chapters  their  rights  of  election  ;  to  the 
universities  their  privileges  of  teaching  and  of  conferring 
degrees  ;  and  he  ratified  all  the  appointments  which  had 
been  made  since  the  time  of  Boniface’s  inhibitions.1  The 
bull  Clericis  laicos  was  so  far  mitigated  as  to  allow  the 
payment  of  all  voluntary  subsidies  by  the  clergy  to  the 
sovereign,  and  the  tithe  of  benefices  was  granted  to 
Philip  for  two  years.k  The  Colonnas  were  restored  to 
their  position,  and  to  so  much  of  their  property  as  had 
not  been  bestowed  on  others,  although  the  rebuilding 
of  Palestrina  was  forbidden  unless  the  pope’s  permission 
should  be  obtained  ;  and  the  cardinals  of  the  family  were 
reinstated  in  their  dignity,  although  they  did  not  as  yet 
recover  the  full  exercise  of  its  privileges.1  Even  the 


s  Dupuy,  208,  229-30  (Apr.  2  ;  May 
13).  Baillet  says  that  the  letter  in  Du  ¬ 
puy,  209,  goes  far  to  confute  the  answer 
of  the  cardinals  to  the  estates,  in  June 
1302  (see  vol.  vi.  p.  340),  in  which  it  is 
attempted  to  gloss  over  Boniface’s  as¬ 
sumption  of  the  patronage  of  benefices. 
244. 

h  Rayn.  1304.  12. 

*  Dupuy,  Preuves,  209,  229  (Apr. 
13-16).  k  lb.  208. 

Ib.  227-9.  Cf.  Bern.  Guidonis  in 
Murat.  III.  ii.  673;  Annal.  Altah. 
1304-5  ;  Ad.  Murimuth.  5.  The  view 
here  given  is  much  the  same  as  that 
of  Bp.  Hefele,  who  points  out  some 
mistakes  of  text  and  interpretation  by 
which  the  understanding  of  Benedict’s 
decree  has  been  affected  (vi.  345- 
7).  Baluze  gives  a  letter  (by  whom 
written,  does  not  appear)  exhorting 
Benedict  to  deal  severely  with  the 


Colonnas,  especially  Sciarra — “  Brevi- 
ter  videtur  mihi  quod  reponere  Co- 
lumpnenses  in  urbe  et  circumposita  re- 
gione  est  ponere  ignem  et  sanguinem 
inter  fideles  ecclesia;  et  Columpnenses 
eosdem.”  (Acta  No.  vii.)  The  Co¬ 
lonnas,  in  a  memoir  to  the  king,  deny 
that  the  pope  is  absolute.  He  cannot 
do  all  things  “  de  plenitudine  potesta- 
tis,”  but  is  limited  by  the  law  of  God  ; 
and  the  cardinals  are  set  to  resist  him 
in  case  of  need,  even  as  St.  Paul  with¬ 
stood  St.  Peter  to  the  face  (Ib.  225-7). 
The  Colonnas  were  not  fully  reinstated 
in  their  property  until  after  Benedict’s 
death  ;  but  the  senate  and  people  of 
Rome  soon  after  restored  all.  (Baillet, 
250-1.)  It  would  seem  that  the  two 
cardinals  were  not  allowed  to  wear 
the  purple,  and  consequently  were  ex¬ 
cluded  from  ecclesiastical  functions,  so 
that  they  could  not  take  part  in  the 


4 


ATTACK  ON  BONIFACE’S  MEMORY.  Book  VIII 


actors  in  the  outrage  of  Anagni  were  forgiven,  with  ex¬ 
ception  of  those  who  had  actually  plundered  the  papal 
treasures,  and  of  Nogaret,  whose  case  was  reserved  for 
the  pope’s  special  judgment.111 

But  these  concessions  were  insufficient  to  satisfy  the 
enmity  of  Philip  against  the  memory  of  his  antagonist. 
With  the  royal  sanction  a  libellous  life  of  the  late  pope 
was  circulated,  describing  him,  under  the  name  of  Male- 
face,  as  a  wicked  sorcerer,  whose  end  had  been  attended 
by  terrible  prodigies  ;n  and  a  petition  was  contrived,  in 
which  the  French  people  were  made  to  entreat  that  tlv 
king  would  take  measures  for  getting  him  declared  z 
heretic,  as  having  notoriously  died  in  heresy  and  in  mor¬ 
tal  sin,  without  sign  of  repentance.  By  such  means  onl) 
(the  petitioners  were  made  to  say)  could  the  independence 
of  the  kingdom  be  asserted.0  An  emissary  of  the  king, 
Peter  of  Peredo,  prior  of  Chese,  had  been  employed 
during  the  last  days  of  Boniface’s  life  in  endeavouring 
to  stir  up  the  Roman  clergy  against  him.  With  the 
same  object  he  now  put  forth  a  long  list  of  points  in 
which  he  represented  Boniface  as  having  encroached 
on  the  rights  of  the  clergy  by  acts  which  he  contrasted 
with  the  alleged  system  of  earlier  popes  ;p  and  it  was 
urged  that  a  general  council  should  be  assembled  at 
Lyons,  or  some  other  convenient  and  neutral  place. 
To  this  proposal  Benedict  gave  no  answer.** 

Rome  was  again  distracted  by  the  factions  of  its  cardi¬ 
nals  and  nobles,  which  were  complicated  and  embittered 
by  the  influence  of  the  French  king  ;  and  the  pope,  un- 


next  conclave  (Hefele,  vi.  347),  and 
that  this  disability  was  removed  by 
Clement  V.  at  his  first  promotion  of 
twelve  cardinals.  See  below,  p.  12. 
ra  Bened.  in  Rayn.  1304.  9. 
n  Martin,  iv.  452. 

0  Dupuy,  Preuves,  214-19. 
p  lb.  210-14;  Baillet,  233-8.  Under 


each  head,  after  stating  the  older  prac¬ 
tice,  he  draws  the  contrast — “  Bonifa- 
cius  autem  praedictus  non  sic,  sed 
prorsus  aliter.”  In  many  respects 
this  was  grossly  unjust,  as  the  assump¬ 
tions  and  corruptions  ascribed  to 
Boniface  were  of  much  earlier  origin. 

1  Dupuy,  211 ;  Hefele,  vi.  348. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1304. 


BENEDICT  XI. 


5 


supported  by  any  family  connexions/  found  himself 
unable  to  hold  his  ground.  It  was  believed  that  he 
intended  to  seek  a  refuge  in  Lombardy;  but  when,  on 
the  approach  of  the  heats  of  summer,  he  announced  an 
intention  of  going  to  Assisi,  it  was  at  first  opposed  by 
the  cardinals,  although  through  the  influence  of  Matthew 
Orsini,  the  most  important  member  of  the  college/  he 
was  able  to  carry  out  his  design,  and  reached  Perugia. 

In  various  directions  Benedict  found  it  necessary  to 
assert  his  authority.  He  had  rebuked  Frederick  of 
Trinacria  for  presuming  to  reckon  the  years  of  his  reign 
from  the  time  when  he  assumed  the  crown  instead  of 
dating  from  the  papal  acknowledgment  of  him  as  king/ 
He  had  endeavoured  to  pacify  the  exasperated  factions 
of  Florence,  where  about  this  time  the  great  poet,  who 
has  invested  the  squabbles  of  Whites  and  Blacks  with 
an  interest  not  their  own,  attempted,  with  some  fellow 
exiles,  to  surprise  the  city,  and  was  condemned  to  banish¬ 
ment  without  hope  of  return.11  But  Benedict’s  legate  was 
driven  to  flight,  and  the  pope  avenged  the  indignity  by 
an  anathema  against  the  Florentines. x 

It  was,  however,  on  the  side  of  France  that  difficulties 
were  most  to  be  feared.  The  bitterness  with  which 
the  persecution  of  Boniface’s  memory  was  urged  on 
compelled  Benedict,  unless  he  would  submit  to  the  utter 
degradation  of  the  papacy,  to  depart  from  that  policy  of 
conciliation  which  best  accorded  with  his  desires.  He 
refused  William  of  Nogaret’s  petition  for  provisional 
absolution, y  and  declined  to  treat  with  him  as  an 


r  Ferret.  Vicent.  10x2. 

8  lb.  This  writer  always  speaks  of 
Matthew  as  an  artful  man. 

*  Rayn.  1303.  49. 

u  a.d  1304,  Murat.  Annal.  VIII.  i. 
22  ;  Sismondi,  iii.  177-8.  But  Balbo 
places  the  attempt  in  1302  (‘Vita  di 
Dante/  i.  233-6,  ed.  Turin,  1839).  See 
vol.  vi.  p.  305.  See  St.  Antoninus  on 


Dante’s  errors,  especially  as  to  the 
condition  of  heathen  sages,  etc.,  iii.  306. 
x  Sismondi,  iii  205. 
y  W.  Nang,  contin.  57;  Baillet,  252. 
“  L’absolution  ad  cautelatn  ou  ad  ma- 
jorem  cautelam  est  celle  que  l’on  prend 
pour  plus  grande  precaution,  et  sans 
reconnaitre  la  validite  de  la  censure, 
et  seulement  en  attendant  le  jugement 


6 


DEATH  OF  BENEDICT  XI. 


Book  VIII. 


ambassador  from  the  king  ;z  and  on  the  9th  of  June 
he  issued  a  bull,  by  which,  with  much  strength  of  de¬ 
nunciation,  Nogaret,  with  fourteen  others  who  had  been 
especially  concerned  in  the  seizure  of  Boniface  and  the 
plunder  of  his  treasures,  together  with  all  their  abettors, 
was  declared  excommunicate,  and  was  cited  to  appear 
for  judgment  on  the  festival  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.’1 
But  two  days  before  that  term  Benedict  died  after  a 
short  illness,  produced  by  eating  largely  of  figs  which 
had  been  brought  to  him  as  a  present,  and  in  which 
it  was  commonly  suspected  that  poison  had  been  ad¬ 
ministered  by  some  enemy.b 

For  many  months  after  the  death  of  Benedict  the 
cardinals  were  unable  to  agree  in  the  choice  of  a 
successor.0  The  nineteen  members  of  whom  the  college 
then  consisted  were  divided  between  a  French  and  an 
Italian  party — the  Italians  headed  by  Matthew  Orsini, 
who  was  supported  by  Francis  Gaetani,  a  nephew  of 


definitif.  ”  Andre,  ‘  Diet,  de  Droit 
canonique,’  i.  60  (ed.  Migne). 
z  Baillet,  252. 
a  Dupuy,  Preuves,  232. 
b  The  figs  were  brought  to  him  as  a 
present  from  the  abbess  of  St.  Petronilla 
at  Perugia,  and  it  is  said  that  the 
bearer,  who  appeared  to  be  a  female 
servant  of  the  convent,  was  a  young 
man  in  disguise  (G.  Villani,  viii.  80  ; 
Antonin,  iii.  263;  see  Murat.  Annal. 
VIII.  i.  22).  Villani  says  that  some 
of  the  cardinals  were  suspected. 
Philip  of  France,  Nogaret,  the  Colon- 
nas,  Musciatto  dei  Francesi,  etc.,  are 
named  by  others.  (See  Ferret.  Ficent. 
1013,  who,  however,  says  nothing  of 
the  present  from  St.  Petronilla’s,  but 
states  that  two  of  the  pope’s  pi/icer}ice 
were  bribed  ;  Sismondi,  Hist,  des  Fr. 
ix.  147-8.)  Ricobaldo  says  that  Bene¬ 
dict  was  killed  by  a  diamond  hidden 
in  one  of  the  figs  (Murat,  ix.  254). 
Theodoric  of  Niem,  a  century  later, 
tells  us  that  the  pope,  at  the  instance 


of  the  Dominicans,  had  resolved  to 
deprive  the  Augustinian  eremites  of 
their  scapularies,  as  too  much  resem¬ 
bling  the  Dominican  dress  ;  and  that, 
in  consequence  of  the  prayers  of  the 
Augustinians,  he  died  in  the  same 
manner  as  Arius  (Eccard.  i.  1471).  As 
to  the  charge  against  the  Franciscan 
Bernard  Deliciosi  in  connexion  with 
the  pope’s  death,  see  below,  ch.  ii.  Mi¬ 
racles  were  believed  to  be  done  at  the 
pope’s  grave  (C.  Zantfliet  in  Martene, 
Coll.  Ampl.  v.  149  ;  Ciacon.  ii.  347), 
and  it  is  said  that  he  was  canonized  by 
Benedict  XIII.  (Alb.  Butler,  July  7). 
The  Bollandists,  however,  nold  that 
his  right  to  a  place  in  the  calendar 
cannot  be  proved.  Jul.  7,  p.  45a;  Jul. 
i5,  P-  4- 

c  Although  shut  up  in  conclave, 
“sibi  tamen  fraudulenter  ministrari 
victualia  procurantes,”  they  put  off  the 
election  a  year.  Girard,  de  Fracheto 
contin.  Bouq.  xxi.  24. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1304-5.  THE  PAPACY  VACANT. 


7 


Boniface  VIII. ;  while  the  chiefs  of  the  French  party 
were  Napoleon  Orsini  and  Nicolas  XJbertini,  bishop  of 
Ostia,  but  more  commonly  styled  cardinal  of  Prato, d  an 
able  and  subtle  Dominican,  who  was  the  confidential 
agent  of  king  Philip.e  At  length  the  citizens  of  Perugia 
became  impatient  of  the  delay,  and  threatened  to  force 
an  election  by  shutting  up  the  cardinals  in  conclave  and 
stinting  their  allowance  of  provisions ;  but  before  this 
threat  was  carried  into  act,  a  compromise  was  settled 
on  terms  which  the  cardinal  of  Prato  had  proposed  to 
Gaetani — that  the  Italians  should  name  three  candidates 
from  beyond  the  Alps,  and  that  from  these  three  the 
French  cardinals  should  select  a  poped  This  arrange¬ 
ment  was  accepted  by  the  Italians  in  the  belief  that  the 
power  of  limiting  the  election  to  three  candidates  would 
secure  the  triumph  of  their  party ;  but  the  cardinal  of 
Prato,  according  to  the  story  which  has  been  commonly 
believed,  pursued  a  deeper  policy.  Knowing  the  men 
who  were  most  likely  to  be  put  forward,  he  trusted  that 
the  French,  by  having  the  final  choice  in  their  hands, 
would  be  able  to  gain  over  the  most  formidable  of  their 
opponents.5  Of  the  three  who  were  nominated  by  the 
Italians,  he  fixed  on  Bertrand  d’Agoust  or  Du  Got,h 
archbishop  of  Bordeaux,  a  Gascon  of  noble  family,  who 
had  been  a  thorough  partisan  of  Boniface,  had  been 
indebted  to  that  pope  for  the  metropolitan  see  of  Bor- 


d  "  Della  terra  di  Prato.”  (G.  Villani, 
viii.  69.  See  Ciacon.  ii.  348.)  St. 
Antoninus,  who  belonged  to  the  same 
order  with  Cardinal  Nicolas,  describes 
him  as  “  vir  sagax,  scripturarum  peri- 
tissimus,  et  in  agibilibus  mundi  expe- 
rientissimus,  qui  et  noverat  secreta 
tractata.”  Cf.  Hefele,  vi.  360. 

e  G.  Villani,  viii.  80 ;  Antoninus,  iii. 
270 ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  16.  Philip  had 
also  employed  Cardinal  Peter  Colonna 
as  an  agent  in  bribery.  Ferret.  Vicent. 
1014. 


f  G.  Vill.  viii.  80  ;  Antonin.  1.  c. 
s  Planck,  v.  171. 

h  “  D’Agoust,  ou  De  Goth,  selon  la 
maniere  des  Anglois,  qui  etoient  alors 
les  maitres  de  la  Guienne.”  (Baillet, 
262.)  On  the  other  hand,  M.  Henri 
Martin  says,  “  Du  Goth,  par  corrup¬ 
tion  D’Agout”  (iv.  459)  ;  and  M. 
Rabanis  calls  him  Du  Got.  The 
name  was  derived  from  Le  Got,  a 
village  near  Bordeaux.  Reumont,  ii. 
720. 


8 


BERTRAND  DU  GOT 


Bosk  VIII. 


deaux,  and  had  attended  his  synod  of  November  1302.1 
The  archbishop  was  a  subject  of  the  king  of  England, 
and  therefore  owed  no  immediate  allegiance  to  the 
French  crown ;  he  had  made  himself  obnoxious  to 
Philip,  and  had  more  especially  offended  the  king’s 
brother,  Charles  of  Valois.k  Yet  this  was  the  man  in 
whom  Nicolas  of  Prato,  reckoning  on  his  notorious 
vanity  and  ambition,  saw  a  fit  instrument  for  bringing 
the  papacy  into  subserviency  to  France.  Between  the 
nomination  of  the  three  and  the  final  choice  of  a  pope 
there  was  to  be  an  interval  of  forty  days.  Within  eleven 
days  a  courier  despatched  by  cardinal  Nicolas  arrived 
at  Paris ;  and  it  is  said  that  within  six  days  more  the 
king  held  a  secret  interview  with  the  archbishop  of  Bor¬ 
deaux  in  the  forest  of  St.  Jean  d’Angely.1  In  considera¬ 
tion  of  receiving  the  papacy,  the  archbishop  is  reported 
to  have  submitted  to  six  conditions>  of  which  five  were 
expressed  at  the  time,  while  the  sixth  was  to  be  reserved 
until  the  occasion  should  come  for  the  performance  of  it. 
Each  party  swore  to  the  other  on  the  holy  eucharist,  and 
the  future  pope  gave  his  brother  and  his  two  nephews  as 
hostages  for  his  good  faith.  He  bound  himself  (1)  to 
reconcile  the  king  perfectly  with  the  church;  (2)  Philip 
and  his  agents  were  to  be  readmitted  to  communion ;  (3) 
the  king  was  to  be  allowed  the  lithe  of  the  ecclesiastical 
income  of  France  for  five  years,  towards  the  expenses  of 
the  Flemish  war ;  (4)  the  memory  of  pope  Boniface  was 
to  be  undone  and  annulled  ;  m  (5)  the  Colonnas  were  to 
be  restored  to  the  cardinalate,  and  certain  friends  of  the 
king  were  to  be  promoted  to  the  same  dignity."  As  to 
the  sixth  condition,  attempts  have  been  made  to  gather 
it  by  conjectures  from  the  sequel  of  the  history — that  it 

1  G.  Vill.  1.  c. ;  Bern.  Guidonis,  in  1  G.  Vill.  1.  c. ;  Antonin.  1.  c. 

Baluz.  Vitae  Pap.  Aven.  i.  6i ;  not.  ib.  1,1  “  Disfare  ed  annullare.”  G.  Vill. 

616.  1.  c. 

k  Antonin.  1.  c.  n  Ib.;  Antonin,  iii.  269. 


Chap  I.  a.d.  1305. 


ELECTED  POPE. 


related  to  the  empire,0  to  the  order  of  the  Templars, ^  or 
to  the  settlement  of  the  papal  court  in  France.*1 

But  this  story,  which  in  itself  appears  suspicious  from 
the  fulness  of  detail  with  which  transactions  so  myste¬ 
rious  are  related,  has  of  late  been  contradicted  in  almost 
every  point ; r  and,  more  especially,  a  document  has 
been  discovered  which  proves  that,  at  the  time  of  the 
alleged  interview  in  the  forest  of  St.  Jean  d’Angely,  the 
archbishop  was  engaged  in  a  provincial  visitation  which 
must  have  prevented  his  meeting  Philip  there  or  else¬ 
where.5  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  negotiations 
between  the  king  and  the  prelate  were  carried  on  through 
the  agency  of  other  persons ;  and  the  particular  con¬ 
ditions  which  are  said  to  have  been  imposed  on  Du  Got 
may  have  been  inferred  from  his  later  conduct.4  That 
he  had  thoroughly  bound  himself  to  Philip’s  interest  is, 
however,  unquestionable.  On  the  5th  of  June  1305  the 
archbishop  was  elected  to  the  papal  chair,  and  each  of 
the  rival  parties  among  the  cardinals  suppose  him  to  be 
its  own.u 


0  Baillet,  265. 

P  Milman,  v.  127. 

1  Murat.  Annal.  VIII.  i.  27 ;  Planck, 
v.  176. 

r  See  Rabanis,  *  Clement  V.  et 
Philippe  le  Bel,’  Paris,  1858.  M. 
Rabanis  maintains,  for  instance,  that 
Bertrand  du  Got  was  never  on  bad 
terms  with  Philip  ;  that  the  cardinal 
of  Prato  was  not  devoted  to  the  king, 
etc.  Bp.  Hefele  (vi.  360-4)  and  Mr. 
von  Reumont  (ii.  719)  generally  agree 
with  this  writer.  Ferret  to  says  that 
Bertrand  was  “  Philippo  gratissimus 
eo  quod  a  juventute  familiaris  exti- 
tisset”  (Murat,  ix.  1015).  On  the 
other  hand,  H.  Rebdorf  states  that 
the  cardinals  chose  Bertrand  because 
he  had  observed  Boniface’s  processes 
against  Philip  strictly  (Freher,  i.  418)  ; 
but  he  knows  nothing  of  the  alleged 
intrigues.  Cf.  Annal.  Lubicenses, 


a.d.  1304,  in  Pertz,  xvi.;  Dino  Com- 
pagni,  517. 

*  See  M.  Rabanis’s  book.  He  had 
before  published  the  record  of  Ber¬ 
trand’s  visitation  (Bordeaux,  1850 ; 
see  Martin,  iv.  460).  Villani’s  story 
had  already  been  questioned,  as  by 
Mansi,  in  his  notes  on  Rayn.  iv.  390-1, 
and  on  Nat.  Alex.  xv.  83.  Some  of 
the  old  biographers  speak  of  Clement 
as  having  been  on  a  visitation  when 
the  tidings  of  his  election  reached  him. 
Baluz.  i.  1,  55. 

*  Planck,  v.  175 ;  Martin,  1.  c. 

Schwab  points  out  that  there  are  indi¬ 
cations  of  a  secret  understanding  in 
Baluz.  i.  62,  63,  84.  ‘J.  Gerson,’  5. 

u  G.  Vill.  1.  c. ;  Antonin.  1.  c.  For 
documents  of  the  election,  see  Mansi, 
xxv.  123-8  ;  Rayn.  1305.  6.  M.  Ra¬ 
banis  points  out,  in  contradiction  to 
Villani,  that  he  was  elected  by  scrutiny. 


TO 


CLEMENT  V. 


Book  VIII. 


But  soon  after  the  election  the  Italian  cardinals,  who 
had  requested  the  new  pope  to  consult  the  interests  of 
the  church  by  repairing  to  Italy,  were  surprised  at  re¬ 
ceiving  from  him  a  summons  to  attend  his  coronation, 
not  at  Borne,  but  at  Lyons.x  Matthew  Orsini,  the  senior 
of  the  college,  is  said  to  have  told  the  cardinal  of  Prato 
that,  since  he  had  succeeded  in  bringing  the  papal  court 
beyond  the  mountains,  it  would  be  long  before  it  would 
return;  “for,”  he  added,  “I  know  the  character  of  the 
Gascons.”  y 

On  St.  Martin’s  day  the  coronation  of  the  new  pope, 

who  had  taken  the  name  of  Clement  V.,  was 
j\ov.  ii.  .  . 

solemnized.  The  king  of  England  had  ex¬ 
cused  himself  from  the  ceremony,  on  account  of  his  war 
with  the  Scots  ;  but  Philip  of  France  and  king  James 
of  Majorca  were  present,  and,  as  the  pope  rode  from 
the  church  of  St.  Just  towards  his  lodgings,  the  king  of 
France  held  his  horse’s  reins  for  part  of  the  way.  But 
as  the  procession  was  passing  near  an  old  and  ruinous 
wall,  on  which  many  spectators  were  crowded  together, 
the  wall  gave  way.  The  pope  was  thrown  from  his 
horse,  and  his  crown  was  rolled  in  the  mud ;  the  duke 
of  Brittany,  who  was  leading  the  horse,  was  killed ; 
and  many  other  persons,  among  whom  was  Clement’s 
own  brother,  perished.2  The  accident  was  regarded  as 
ominous  of  evil  to  come. 

Another  near  relative  of  Clement  was  soon  after  slain 
in  an  affray  which  arose  out  of  a  disreputable  amour,  and, 
in  consequence  of  the  exasperated  feeling  of  the  citizens, 
the  pope  thought  it  well  to  withdraw  from  Lyons  to 
Bordeaux.  As  an  instance  of  the  manner  in  which  the 


which  gave  him  a  majority  of  15  against 
10.  On  the  motives  which  might  have 
influenced  the  cardinals  in  his  favour, 
see  Hefele,  vi.  364-7. 

x  G.  Vill.  viii.  81  ;  Ferret  Vicent 
1015  ;  Rayn.  1305.  7. 


y  G.  Vill.  1.  c. ;  Antonin,  iii.  269. 

1  Vita  I.  Clem.  V.  cc.  1-2  ;  Vita  VI. 
97 ;  Will.  Nang,  contin.  58  ;  Ptol.  Luc. 
in  Baluz.  c.  23 ;  Gir.  de  Fracheto, 
cont.  in  Bouq.  xxi.  26. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1305-10.  THE  PAPACY  AT  AVIGNON.  1 1 

resources  of  cathedrals  and  monasteries  were  drained  by 
the  expense  of  entertaining  him  and  his  train  db  this 
journey,  it  is  recorded  that,  after  his  departure  from 
Bourges,  the  archbishop,  Giles  Colonna,  found  himself 
obliged  to  seek  the  means  of  subsistence  in  the  daily 
payments  which  were  allowed  to  members  of  his  chapter 
for  attendance  at  the  offices  of  the  cathedral.3.  During 
five  years  Clement  sojourned  in  various  parts  of  France, 
until  at  length  he  fixed  his  residence  at  Avignon,  a  city 
held  under  the  imperial  kingdom  of  Arles  by  the  count 
of  Provence,  who,  as  king  of  Naples,  was  also  a  vassal 
of  the  papal  see.b  But,  although  nominally  beyond  the 
French  territory,  the  popes  at  Avignon  were  under  the 
influence  of  the  kings  of  France;  and  the  seventy  years’ 
captivity  in  Babylon  (as  it  was  styled  by  the  Italians) 
greatly  affected  the  character  of  the  papacy.  Among  the 
popes  of  this  time  were  some  whose  memory  deserves 
to  be  held  in  very  high  respect  ;  but  the  corruption  of 
the  court  grew  to  a  degree  before  unknown,  its  exactions 
raised  the  indignation  of  all  western  Christendom,0  and 
its  moral  tone  became  grossly  scandalous.  Clement 
himself  openly  entertained  as  his  mistress  Brunisenda 
de  Foix,  the  wife  of  Count  Talleyrand  of  Perigord,  and 
lavished  on  her  insatiable  rapacity  the  treasures  which  he 
wrung  out  from  the  subjects  of  his  spiritual  dominion. d 
Simony  was  practised  without  limit  and  without  shame ; e 
and  some  payments  which  had  formerly  been  made  to 
the  bishops,  such  as  the  firstfruits  of  English  benefices, 
were  now  seized  by  the  popes  themselves/  Ecclesiastical 
discipline  was  neglected,  and  the  sight  of  the  corruptions 
of  Avignon  swelled  the  numbers  of  the  sectaries  who 

a  W.  Nang,  contin.  59 ;  Baluz.  i.  c  Vita  I.  Clem.  V.  cc.  3,  5. 

578  ;  Bouq.  xxi.  645.  d  G.  Villani,  ix.  58 ;  Antonin,  iii. 

b  The  adjoining  territory  of  the  Ve-  287. 
naissin  had  been  ceded  to  the  popes  e  Ibid, 

by  Philip  III.  in  1273.  See  Gibbon,  f  Schrockh,  xxi.  2*. 

vi.  358  ;  Reumont,  ii.  725-9. 


12 


CLEMENT’S  SUBSERVIENCY  TO  PHILIP. 


Book  VIII. 


regarded  the  church  as  apostate ; s  while  in  the  meantime 
the  ancient  capital  of  western  Christendom  was  left  to 
neglect  and  decay. h  But,  whereas  the  Italians  denounce 
the  corruption  of  the  papal  court  as  an  effect  of  its 
settlement  in  France,'  French  writers  represent  the 
luxury  and  vices  of  Avignon  as  imported  from  Italy, 
to  the  destruction  of  the  virtuous  simplicity  which  they 
suppose  to  have  formerly  marked  the  character  of  their 
own  countrymen.11  In  truth  the  state  of  things  which 
had  been  bad  at  Rome  became  worse  at  Avignon  ;  but 
it  is  in  vain  that  either  nation  would  endeavour  to  throw 
the  blame  of  this  on  the  other. 

From  the  very  beginning  of  his  pontificate  Clement 
showed  his  subserviency  to  the  author  of  his  promotion. 
He  granted  to  Philip  the  tenth  of  the  ecclesiastical  re¬ 
venues  of  France  for  five  years,  under  the  pretext  of  a 
crusade ;  he  restored  the  king  and  all  his  abettors  in  the 
late  struggle  to  the  communion  of  the  church ;  at  his 
request  he  reinstated  the  cardinals  of  the  Colonna  family 
in  all  the  privileges  of  their  office  he  created  ten  new 
cardinals,  who  were  all  either  Frenchmen  or  devoted  to 
the  French  interest  ;m  he  withdrew  all  that  was  offensive 
in  Boniface’s  bulls,  the  Clericis  laicos  and  the  Unam 


e  Giannone,  Iv.  63.  See  the  terrible 
invective  of  Dante,  Inferno,  xix.  82, 
seqq.  Petrarch’s  testimony  will  be 
mentioned  hereafter. 

h  In  the  beginning  of  this  time, 
however,  the  Lateran  church  was  re¬ 
built,  after  having  been  burnt  in  1308. 
(Rayn.  1308.  10-11  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  12.) 
Such  was  the  enthusiasm  for  the  work 
that  women  dragged  waggons  (quad- 
rigas)  laden  with  stone  for  it,  “non 
permittentes  quod  animalia  earn  viola- 
rent”  (Ptol.  Luc.  31  ;  cf.  Ricobald. 
in  Murat,  ix.  255).  Clement  contri¬ 
buted  largely.  Antonin.  276. 

1  See,  e.g.,  Flav.  Blond.  Hist.  p.  339, 
and  others  quoted  by  P>alu7e,  Praef.  in 
VV.  Pap.  Aven. 


k  De  Ruina  Ecclesiae  (otherwise 
‘  De  Corrupto  Eccl.  Statu,’  commonly 
ascribed  to  Nicolas  de  Clemangis),  c. 
42,  ed.  Von  d.  Hardt  ;  Baluz.  praef. 
in  Vit.  Pap.  Avenion.  Baluze  denies 
that  the  residence  at  Avignon  was  an 
exile,  forasmuch  as,  wherever  the  pope 
is,  there  is  the  apostolic  see.  Conse¬ 
quently  Avignon  could  not  be  as 
Babylon. 

1  Baluz.  ii.  63  ;  Bern.  Guid.  56 ; 
Annal.  Altah.  a.d.  1305.  See  above, 
p.  4. 

In  Dec.  15,  1305.  (Ptol.  Luc.  24 ; 
Antonin,  iii.  269  )  Some  of  the  older 
cardinals  had  returned  to  Rome. 
Hemingburgh,  ii.  241. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1305-7.  WILLIAM  OF  NOGARET. 


*3 


sa?ictam.n  At  the  same  time  he  began  to  display  his 
own  character  by  using  his  new  power  for  purposes  of 
revenge  on  persons  who  had  formerly  offended  him, 
and  by  scandalous  promotions  of  his  near  relations  to 
dignities  for  which  they  were  notoriously  unfit.  “  The 
whole  court,”  says  St.  Antoninus  of  Florence,  “  was 
governed  by  Gascons  and  Frenchmen.”0 

During  the  vacancy  of  the  papal  chair,  William  of 
Nogaret  had  repeatedly  presented  himself  before  the 
official  of  the  bishop  of  Paris,  and  had  protested  against 
the  sentence  which  the  late  pope  Benedict  had  uttered 
against  him,  as  having  been  based  on  false  grounds.P  He 
claimed  for  himself  the  character  of  a  champion  of  the 
church  against  the  evil  practices  of  Boniface  ;  he  declared 
that  Boniface’s  misfortunes  were  the  result  of  his  obstinacy, 
and  tendered  a  list  of  sixty  articles  against  his  memory. 
He  charged  him  with  the  most  abominable  and  monstrous, 
crimes,  with  having  obtained  his  office  irregularly,  with 
having  been  an  enemy  of  the  French  church  and  king¬ 
dom  and  he  quoted  against  him  the  saying  as  to  his 
having  entered  like  a  fox,  reigned  like  a  lion,  and  died 
like  a  dog.r  As  to  his  own  behaviour  at  Anagni,  he  as¬ 
serted  that  he  had  been  obliged  to  use  force  because  the 
pope  could  not  be  dealt  with  by  gentler  means  ;  that  he 
had  protected  Boniface  and  the  papal  treasures,  had  saved 
his  life  and  that  of  his  nephew  Peter  Gaetani ;  that  in 
consideration  of  his  exertions,  which  had  cost  him  much 
reproach,  he  had  received  the  pope’s  thanks  and  abso¬ 
lution  after  Boniface  had  been  set  at  liberty.  And  he 
professed  a  wish  to  be  heard  in  his  own  justification 
before  a  council.55 

Philip  was  not  disposed  to  let  the  memory  of  Boniface 

“  Feb.  1,  1306.  Dupuy,  287-8.  See  P  Dupuy,  237-8,  269-73. 

Baillet,  270.  1  lb.  238,  251. 

0  iii.  269.  Cf.  Bern.  Guid.  5S-9 ;  r  lb.  249.  (See  vol.  vl.  p.354.) 

Ptol.  Luc.  39.  *  Dupuy,  246-8,  250-1,  259. 


14 


CONFERENCE  AT  POITIERS 


Book  VIII. 


rest.  Immediately  after  the  coronation  of  Clement  he 
had  desired  him  to  listen  to  charges  against  his  pre¬ 
decessor;  and,  although  the  pope  was  able  to  defer 
the  matter  for  a  time,  Philip  persisted  in  his  design.1 
In  1307  he  invited  Clement,  who  was  then  at  Bordeaux, 
to  Poitiers  u — ostensibly  with  a  view  to  a  crusade  under 
Charles  of  Valois,  who,  by  marrying  the  heiress  of  the 
Courtenays,  had  acquired  pretensions  to  the  throne  of 
Constantinople.  It  was  said  that  the  reigning  Greek 
emperor,  Andronicus,  was  too  weak  to  hold  his  ground 
against  the  advancing  Turkish  arms  ;  that  it  was  therefore 
expedient  to  set  him  aside,  and  to  oppose  to  the  infidels 
a  strong  Christian  power,  with  Charles  as  its  head.  The 
pope  entered  into  this  scheme,  wrote  letters  in  favour  of 
it,  granted  ecclesiastical  tenths,  and  in  other  ways  showed 
himself  willing  to  favour  the  interest  of  the  French  princes. 
Of  a  vast  debt  which  Charles  of  Naples  had  contracted 
to  the  papal  treasury,  two-thirds  were  forgiven,  and  the 
remainder  was  to  be  transferred  to  the  proposed  crusade  ;x 
the  crown  of  Hungary  was  awarded  to  the  Neapolitan 
king’s  grandson,  Charobert,  and  proceedings  were  begun 
for  the  canonization  of  his  second  son,  Lewis,  who  had 
died  in  1297  as  archbishop  of  ToulouseA  All  who  had 
been  Philip’s  instruments  in  his  contest  with  Boniface 
were  allowed  to  go  unpunished;  even  William  of  Nogaret 
was  absolved,  on  condition  that  he  should  join  the  next 
crusade  to  the  Holy  Land,  and  that  in  the  meantime  he 
should  make  pilgrimages  to  the  shrine  of  St.  James  at 
Compostella,  and  to  certain  other  places  of  devotion.2 


1  Dupuy,  298,  368  ;  Hefele,  vi.  370. 
"  The  pope’s  stay  at  Poitiers  is  said 
to  have  lasted  about  sixteen  months. 
Gir.  de  Fracheto,  in  Bouq.  xxi.  28. 

*  See  Ptol.  Luc.  in  Baluz.  i.  18,  and 
note,  p.  606 ;  also  i.  158  ;  Rayn.  1306. 
2;  1307.  2-6,  23-4,  etc.;  Milman,  v. 
132. 

v  For  this  younger  St.  Lewis  of  the 


royal  family  of  France,  see  the  Acta 
SS.  Aug.  19,  p.  775,  seqq.;  Jordan,  in 
Murat.  Antiq.  I  tab,  iv.  1023-7.  He 
was  only  in  his  24th  year  at  the  time 
of  his  death — having  obtained  dispen¬ 
sations  as  to  the  age  for  ordination  as 
priest  and  bishop.  He  was  canonized 
by  John  XXII.  in  1317. 

*  Rayn.  1307.  11 ;  Milm.  v.  133. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1307.  BETWEEN  CLEMENT  AND  PHILIP. 


T5 


But  still  Philip  urged  on  the  case  against  Boniface, 
requiring  that  he  should  be  condemned  as  a  heretic,  and 
that  his  bones  should  be  disinterred  and  burnt.3,  Clement 
felt  that  by  such  a  course  the  credit  of  the  papacy  would 
be  grievously  impaired ;  that  if  Boniface  had  not  been  a 
rightful  pope,  his  appointments  to  the  cardinalate  must 
be  void,  and  consequently  Clement’s  own  election,  by 
cardinals  of  whom  a  large  proportion  owed  their  dignity 
to  Boniface,  would  be  annulled;  and,  as  was  natural, 
the  cardinals  whose  position  was  affected  were  allied  with 
the  pope  in  opposition  to  Philip’s  wishes. b  Finding  that, 
although  treated  with  a  great  show  of  respect  at  Poitiers, 
he  was  virtually  a  prisoner,  Clement  attempted  to  escape 
in  disguise,  carrying  with  him  a  part  of  his  treasures ; 
but  the  attempt  was  unsuccessful.0  At  length,  however, 
it  was  suggested  by  the  cardinal  of  Prato  that  the 
question  should  be  reserved  for  the  consideration  of 
a  general  council,  which  Clement  intended  to  assemble 
at  Vienne,  a  city  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  French 
king’s  territory.  The  pope  eagerly  caught  at  the  sug¬ 
gestion  ;  and  Philip,  who  had  often  pressed  for  such 
a  council,  found  himself  now  debarred  from  opposing 
it,  however  distasteful  to  him.d 

But  during  the  conferences  at  Poitiers  another  subject 
was  brought  forward,  which  held  out  at  once  to  Clement 
a  hope  of  rescuing  the  reputation  of  Boniface  and  the 
credit  of  his  see,  and  to  the  king  the  prospect  of  re¬ 
plenishing  his  exhausted  treasury.  For,  notwithstanding 


There  are  many  documents  relating  to 
Nogaret  in  Menard,  Hist,  de  Nismes, 
Preuves,  126,  seqq.  From  Philip’s 
having  named  him  as  an  executor  in 
1 31 1,  and  having  substituted  another 
in  1314,  it  is  inferred  that  he  died  in 
the  interval.  Hist,  de  Langued.  iv. 
n3.  See  also  note  xi.  in  that  volume. 

R  G.  Vill.  viii.  91.  Raynaldus  says 
that  Boniface’s  body  was  by  divine 


providence  kept  uncorrupt  for  three 
centuries  (1307.  10). 

b  G.  Vill.  1.  c.;  Antonin,  iii.  271. 
c  Vita,  I.  5. 

d  G.  Vill.  iii.  91 ;  Antonin.  1.  c.  Bp. 
Hefele,  however,  seems  to  be  right  in 
saying  (vi.  372)  that  the  distinct  scheme 
of  the  council  was  of  somewhat  later 

date. 


i6 


PHILIP'S  FINANCIAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Book  VIII. 


the  unexampled  severity  of  his  taxation,  and  the  absence 
of  all  splendour  in  his  court,  Philip  was  continually  in 
difficulties  as  to  money,  chiefly  on  account  of  his  un¬ 
successful  wars  with  the  Flemings.®  In  order  to  supply 
his  needs,  he  had  more  than  once  expelled  the  Jews  and 
the  Lombards  from  his  dominions,  and  had  confiscated 
their  property ;  and  he  had  practised  a  succession  of 
infamous  tricks  on  the  coinage,  so  as  to  provoke  his 
subjects  to  discontent,  which  in  1306  broke  out  into 
insurrection/  Philip,  finding  himself  insecure  in  his 
own  palace,  took  refuge  in  the  house  of  the  Templars 
at  Paris,  which  was  more  strongly  fortified  ;  and  having 
appeased  the  multitude  which  besieged  him  there  by 
concessions,  he  afterwards  hanged  nearly  thirty  of  their 
leaders.8  The  society  to  which  he  had  then  been  in¬ 
debted  for  shelter  and  deliverance  was  now  to  feel  his 
enmity.11 

The  great  military  orders  of  the  Temple  and  the 
Hospital,  while  they  grew  in  importance  and  in  power, 
had  incurred  much  enmity  by  their  assumptions,  and 


e  Sism.  ix.  156. 

f  G.  Vill.  viii.  66,  seqq.;  Vita  I. 
Clem.  col.  5;  W.  Nang.  cont.  59; 
Bern.  Guid.  83  ;  Sism.  ix.  177;  Martin, 
iv.  464.  See  Raynouard,  xxi.  seqq. 

Lit  si  vedr&  il  duol  che  sopra  Senna 
Induce,  falseggiando  la  moneta, 

Quei  che  morra  di  colpo  di  cotenna." 

DANTE,  Parad.  xix,  118-120. 

The  insurgents  are  said  to  have  been 
chiefly  poor  people,  whose  rents  had 
been  tripled  in  consequence  of  the 
king’s  operations  on  the  coinage.  Joh. 
a  Sto.  Victore,  in  Bouq.  xxi.  647. 

s  W.  Nang.  cont.  1.  c.;  Ptol.  Luc. 
26. 

h  Among  the  works  on  the  suppres¬ 
sion  of  the  Templars  may  be  named, 
the  ‘  Proces  des  Templiers,’  ed.  Miche¬ 
let  (Docum.  In6d.  sur  l’Hist.  de 
France),  2  vols.  4to,  Paris,  1841-51 ; 


Dupuy,  ‘  Hist,  de  l'Ordre  milit.  des 
Templiers,’  Brussels,  1751  ;  Raynou¬ 
ard,  ‘Monuments  Historiques  relatifs 
hla  Condemnation  des  Chevaliers  du 
Temple,'  Paris,  1813 ;  Maillard  de 
Chambures,  ‘  Regie  et  Statuts  secrets 
des  Templiers,'  Paris.  1840 ;  v.  Ham¬ 
mer,  ‘  Mysterium  Baphometis  revela- 
tum  ’  (in  ‘Fundgruben  des  Orients,'  vi. 
1-120),  Vienna,  1818;  v.  Nell,  ‘  Ba- 
phomet,  Actenstiicke  zur  Ehrenrettung 
eines  christlichen  Ordens.’  Vienna, 
1820;  Menard,  ‘Hist,  de  Nismes,’ 
Paris,  1750,  t.  i.  Preuves,  No.  136 ; 
Havemann,  ‘  Gesch.  des  Ausgangs 
des  Tempelherrenordens,’  Stuttg.  1846. 
Against  the  memory  of  the  Templars 
have  been  arrayed  in  France,  through 
the  influence  of  their  various  inter¬ 
ests,  royalist,  legist,  and  ecclesiastical 
writers.  See  Sismondi,  ix.  204-5 
Martin,  iv.  467. 


Chap.  I. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


had  not  escaped  serious  imputations.  Although  the 
Templars  at  their  outset  had  received  no  special  exemp¬ 
tions  (for  to  such  privileges  their  great  patron,  Bernard 
of  Clairvaux,  was  opposed),1  they  had  gradually  acquired 
much  of  this  kind.k  Their  lands  were  free  from  tithes. 
They  were  untouched  by  interdicts  uttered  against  any 
place  where  they  might  be.  A  bull  of  Alexander  III., 
granted  as  a  reward  for  their  adhesion  to 
him  against  the  rival  claimant  of  the  papacy,  * 
had  made  them  independent  of  all  but  the  papal 
authority,  and  allowed  them  to  have  a  body  of  clergy  of 
their  own.1  But  Alexander  himself  found  it  necessarv, 
at  the  Lateran  council  of  1179,111  to  censure  them,  in 
common  with  the  Hospitallers,  for  having  greatly  ex¬ 
ceeded  their  privileges ;  and  about  thirty  years  later, 
Innocent  III.  reproved  them  as  undutiful  to  the  holy 
see,  as  insubordinate  to  all  other  ecclesiastical  authority, 
as  interfering  with  the  discipline  of  the  church,  and  as 
having  fallen  into  many  vices,  so  that  they  used  the  show 
of  religion  in  order  to  blind  the  world  to  their  voluptuous¬ 
ness.11  At  a  later  time,  they  had  opposed  Frederick  II. 
in  his  expedition  to  the  Holy  Land,  and  it  was  said 
that  they  had  offered  to  betray  him  to  the  Soldan — an 
offer  which  the  more  generous  infidel  made  known  to 
the  object  of  the  intended  treachery.0  Since  the  loss  of 
Palestine,  both  orders  had  established  themselves  in  the 
island  of  Cyprus,  and  many  of  the  Templars  had  returned 
to  settle  on  the  estates  which  their  order  possessed  in 
western  Europe. p 

The  order  of  the  Temple  now  consisted  of  about  15,000 
members — the  most  formidable  and  renowned  soldiery  in 

*  Wilcke,  ii.  184-5.  n  Ep.  x.  121  (Patrol,  ccv.)  ;  cf.  xii. 

k  See  a  summary  in  Dupuy,  104.  45  (ib.  ccxvi.  56). 

1  See  this  bull,  “  Omne  datum  opti-  0  See  vol.  v.  p.  154. 

mum,”  in  Rymer,  i.  27 ;  or  in  Migne,  p  For  their  quarrels  with  the  king 

Patrol,  cc.  919.  of  Cyprus,  see  letters  of  Boniface  VIII. 

m  C.  9.  in  Dupuy,  176-8. 

VOL.  VII. 


2 


1 8 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


Look  VIII. 


the  world  ;  and  the  whole  number  of  persons  attached  to 
it  may  probably  have  amounted  to  not  less  than  100,000. 
About  half  of  them  were  Frenchmen,  and  the  preponde¬ 
rance  of  that  nation  was  shown  by  the  fact  that  all  the 
grand-masters  of  the  order  had  been  French. They  had 
vast  wealth,  which  it  was  supposed  that  they  held  them¬ 
selves  bound  to  increase  by  unlawful  as  well  as  by  lawful 
means ; r  and,  strong  and  powerful  as  they  already  were, 
it  may  have  been  not  unnatural  to  suspect  them  of  in¬ 
tending,  after  the  example  already  given  by  the  Teutonic 
knights  on  the  Baltic,  to  establish  a  sovereignty  of  their 
own.s  They  were  animated  by  a  spirit  of  exclusive  de¬ 
votion  to  the  brotherhood,  and  of  contempt  for  all  men 
beyond  it.  When  Clement  had  projected  an  union  with 
the  Hospitallers,  the  master  of  the  Temple,  James  de 
Molay,  had  declined  the  proposal  on  grounds  which, 
although  partly  reasonable,  showed  a  scornful  assumption 
of  superiority  to  the  order  which  made  the  less  rigid 
profession.1  Towards  the  bishops,  from  whose  authority 
they  were  exempt,  towards  the  sovereigns  of  the  countries 
within  which  their  vast  estates  were  situated,  the  beha¬ 
viour  of  the  Templars  was  disrespectful  and  defiant.11  The 
unpopularity  caused  by  their  pride  x  was  increased  by  the 
mystery  and  closeness  which  they  affected  in  all  that  con¬ 
cerned  the  order;  and  out  of  this  not  unnaturally  arose 
dark  suspicions  against  them.  During  the  latter  part  of 
their  career  in  the  Holy  Land,  they  had  become  familiar 
with  the  infidels,  whom  they  had  at  first  opposed  with 
unrelenting  hatred  ;y  and  it  was  supposed  that  both  their 


Sism.  ix.  231. 
r  See  Havemann,  c.  3. 
s  Maillard  de  Chambures,  64  ;  Mi¬ 
chelet,  iii.  137. 

1  Baluz.  Vitse  Pap.  ii.  180  5  ;  Dupuy, 
179,  seqq.  A  like  proposal  had  been 
made  by  the  council  of  Salzburg  in 
1297.  Hefele,  vi.  235  ;  Havem.  354. 
u  The  grand-master  admitted  that 


they  had  been  too  rigid  in  asserting 
their  privileges  against  bishops.  Pro- 
ces,  i.  35. 

x  Their  pride  and  oppressive  charac¬ 
ter  are  owned  by  a  member  of  the 
order.  Ib.  ii.  9. 

y  A  Templar  deposed  that  William 
of  Beaujeu,  when  master,  “  habebat 
magnam  amicitiam  cum  soldano  *t 


Chap.  I. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


19 


religion  and  their  morals  had  been  infected  by  their 
oriental  associations.2  In  their  ordinary  habits  it  is 
said  that  they  were  lax  and  luxurious,  so  that  “  to  drink 
like  a  Templar  ”  was  a  proverb. a 

When  Gregory  IX.,  in  1238,  had  reproved  the  Hos¬ 
pitallers  for  having  allied  themselves  with  the  Greek 
Vatatzes  against  the  Latin  emperor  of  Constantinople,  he 
had  taken  occasion  to  speak  of  imputations  of  unchastity 
and  heresy  which  were  cast  on  them.b  It  was  not  until 
a  later  time  that  any  accusations  of  heresy  were  brought 
against  the  Templars ;  but  now  strange  and  shocking 
reports  of  this  kind  were  circulated,  and,  instead  of  the 
charge  of  familiarity  with  women,  there  were  suspicions 
of  unnatural  vices,  which  were  less  abhorred  in  the  east 
than  in  the  west.0  It  would  seem  that  the  loss  of  the 
Holy  Land  had  told  unfavourably  on  their  character. 
Having  been  deprived  of  their  proper  occupation,  they 
may  naturally  have  yielded  to  the  temptations  which  arise 
out  of  idleness  ;  perhaps,  too,  the  spirit  which  commonly 
led  the  people  of  these  days  to  judge  by  visible  appear¬ 
ances  may  have  inclined  the  Templars  themselves  to  doubt 
the  power  of  the  God  whose  champions  had  been  forced 
to  give  way  to  unbelievers,  while  it  disposed  the  gene¬ 
rality  of  men  to  accept  tales  and  suspicions  against  the 
order,  to  whose  sins  it  was  natural  to  ascribe  the  loss 
of  that  sacred  territory  which  it  had  been  their  especial 


Sarracenis,  quia  aliter  non  potuissent 
ipse  vel  ordo  terra  ultra  mare  reman- 
sisse.”  (Proc.  ii.  215.)  See,  too,  the 
depositions  of  William  Kilros,  a  chap¬ 
lain  of  the  order,  in  Wilkins,  ii.  377. 

z  A  Dominican  witness  says  that  a 
certain  master,  as  a  condition  of  de¬ 
liverance  from  a  soldan’s  prison,  bound 
himself  to  introduce  errors  into  the 
order.  Proc.  ii.  195-6. 

“  Havemann  needlessly  tries  to  ex¬ 
plain  this  away  (356).  Raynouard 
says  that  the  proverb  is  not  found 


until  after  the  destruction  of  the 
order.  8.  b  Rayn.  1238.  32. 

c  One  witness  of  the  order  expresses 
his  disbelief  that  such  things  were 
practised,  “quia  poterant  habere  mu- 
lieres  pulchras  et  bene  comptas,  et 
frequenter  eas  habebant,  cum  essent 
divites  et  potentes,  etc.”  (Proces,  i. 
326).  Many  witnesses  say  that  great 
scandals  had  arisen  against  the  order ; 
one,  that  he  was  ashamed  when  people 
pointed  at  him  and  said  “EcceTem- 
plarium  !  ”  lb.  618. 


20 


PHILIP  THE  FAIR 


Book  VIII. 


duty  to  defend.d  And  it  is  probable  that  even  before 
their  withdrawal  from  Palestine  they  may  have  taken 
up  oriental  superstitions  as  to  the  virtue  of  charms  and 
magical  practices.6 

Philip  the  Fair  had  at  one  time  endeavoured  to  estab¬ 
lish  a  connexion  with  the  order,  probably  in  the  hope  of 
becoming  master  of  its  treasures ;  but  his  suit  had  been 
rejected.  In  the  contest  with  Boniface,  the  Templars, 
notwithstanding  the  allegiance  which  most  of  them  owed 
to  the  crown  of  France,  had  inclined  to  side  with  the 
pope  ;f  and  when  Benedict  XI.  had  granted  Philip  the 
tenths  of  spiritual  property  in  France,  the  Templars  had 
firmly  stood  on  their  exemption.^  The  king  had  been 
largely  in  their  debt  for  money  advanced  to  pay  the 
dowry  of  his  sister,  the  queen  of  England;11  and  his  ac¬ 
quaintance  with  their  resources  had  been  extended  by 
his  late  sojourn  in  the  head-quarters  of  the  order  at  Paris 
— a  large  enclosure,  covered  with  buildings  sufficient  to 
contain  a  vast  number  of  dependents,  and  strong  enough 
to  hold  out  against  a  more  formidable  siege  than  that 
which  he  had  there  experienced.1  And  to  the  motives  of 
cupidity  and  jealousy k  may  have  been  added  the  influence 
of  a  Dominican  confessor  over  the  king’s  mind  ;  for  the 


d  Michelet,  iii.  131  ;  Milm.  v.  138. 
e  Milm.  v.  137.  Von  Hammer,  in 
his  ‘  Mysterium  Baphometisrevelatum’ 
(see  p.  16),  and  in  his  ‘  Memoire  sur 
deux  Coffrets  Gnostiques  ’  (Paris, 
1832),  produces  evidence  of  gnostic 
abominations,  etc.,  but  entirely  fails  to 
bring  them  home  to  the  Templars.  The 
coffrets,  formerly  in  the  Blacas  collec¬ 
tion,  may  now  be  seen  in  the  British 
Museum  ;  and  I  am  informed  by  a 
high  authority  that  they  are  certainly 
not  older  than  the  15th  century  (i.e. 
that  they  date  from  after  the  ruin  of 
the  order).  See  Wilcke,  ii.  290-301, 
against  v.  Hammer. 
f  Chron.  Ast.  in  Murat,  xi.  193  ; 


Milm.  v.  140.  e  Havem.  186. 

h  Th.  de  la  Moor,  Vit.  Edw.  II.,  in 
Camden,  ‘Anglica,  Normannica,’  etc., 
593,  where  it  is  said  that  Philip  hated 
the  master  on  account  of  his  impor¬ 
tunity  in  demanding  repayment. 

'  See  Geraud’s  ‘  Paris  sous  Philippe 
le  Bel,’  with  the  maps  (Doc.  Indd.  sur 
1’Hist.  de  France,  1837).  Henry  III. 
of  England,  when  visiting  St.  Lewis 
in  1254,  preferred  the  Temple  to  the 
king’s  palace  as  a  lodging,  on  account 
of  the  greater  room  which  it  afforded 
for  his  train.  Matth.  Paris,  899. 

k  “  Totum  tamen  dicitur  falso  con- 
fictum  ex  avaritia.”  Antonin,  iii.  274- 
cf.  G.  Vill.  VIII.  92. 


Chap.  I. 


AND  THE  TEMPLARS. 


21 


Dominicans,  who  had  at  one  time  been  closely  allied  with 
the  Templars,  had  since  become  their  bitterest  enemies.1 

The  circumstances  which  led  Philip  to  attack  the  Tem¬ 
plars  are  variously  reported.  The  story  most  generally 
received  is,  that  one  Squin  of  Floyrac  or  Florian,  a  native 
of  Beziers,  who  had  been  prior  of  Montfaucon,  having 
been  imprisoned  at  Paris m  for  heresy  and  vicious  life, 
became  acquainted  in  prison  with  a  Florentine  named 
Noffo  Dei,11  an  apostate  from  the  order ;  and  that  these 
wretches  conspired  to  seek  their  deliverance  by  giving 
information  of  enormities  alleged  to  be  committed  by 
the  Templars.0  Squin  of  Florian  refused  to  tell  the 
important  secrets  of  which  he  professed  to  be  master 
to  any  one  but  the  king  ;  and  Philip  heard  the  tale 
with  eager  delight.P  It  appears  that  he  spoke  of  the 
matter  to  the  pope  as  early  as  the  time  of  Clement’s 
coronation  at  Lyons ;  but  nothing  was  done  until  later. 

The  pope  summoned  the  masters  and  other  chief  digni¬ 
taries  of  the  two  great  military  orders  from  Cyprus,  in 
order  to  a  consultation  as  to  the  best  means  of  carrying 
out  an  intended  crusade. r  The  master  of  the  Hospital¬ 
lers,  Fulk  de  Villaret,  was  able  to  excuse  himself,  on  the 
ground  that  he  and  his  brethren  were  engaged  in  the 
siege  of  Rhodes  ;s  but  the  master  of  the  Templars,  James 
de  Molay,  a  knight  of  Franch e-Comte,  who  had  been 


1  Michelet,  iii.  140-1.  The  Asti 
chronicler  says  that  Nogaret  was 
“auctor  pro  posse  ruinae  ordinis,”  be¬ 
cause  the  Templars  had  caused  his 
father  to  be  burnt  as  a  heretic.  193. 

m  See  the  Hist.  Langued.  iv.  138  ; 
Proces,  i.  36  ;  Hefele,  vi.  377. 

n  ‘‘Noffo  Dei  nostri  Fiorentino.” 
(G.  Villani,  viii.  92.)  One  of  these 
men  was  afterwards  hanged,  and  the 
other  came  to  a  violent  end.  Ib. 

0  Vita  VI.  Clem.,  p.  99;  G.  Vill. 
1.  c. ;  Antonin,  iii.  272;  Havem.  193; 
Wiicke,  ii.  261. 


P  Vita  VI.  Clem.,  p.  100. 

<1  See  the  bulls  “  Faciens  misericor- 
diam  ”  and  “  Regnans  in  ccelis.”  Pro 
ces,  i.  2  ;  Mansi,  xxv.  370;  Baluz.  ii. 
75- 

r  There  is  a  letter  of  J.  de  Molay 
cn  this  subject  in  Dupuy,  182-5  •  and 
Rinaldi  gives  many  letters  relating  to 
the  crusade. 

s  W.  Nang.  cont.  60;  Vita  I.  Clem., 
p.  6.  Rhodes  fell  into  their  hands  on 
the  festival  of  the  Assumption,  1310. 
Bern.  Guid.  72. 


22 


ARREST  OF 


Book  VIII. 


forty-two  years  in  the  order,1  obeyed  the  summons,  and 
appeared  in  France  with  such  a  display  of  pomp  and  of 
wealth  as  naturally  tended  to  increase  the  envy  and  the 
mistrust  with  which  his  brotherhood  was  already  re¬ 
garded."  By  Philip,  to  one  of  whose  sons  he  had  been 
godfather  some  years  before, x  he  was  received  with  great 
honour,  and  the  pope,  in  accordance  with  the  invitation 
which  had  been  given,  consulted  him  as  to  the  proposed 
crusade.y  But  the  Templars  soon  became  aware  that 
rumours  of  an  unfriendly  kind  were  current,  and  them¬ 
selves  requested  the  pope  to  investigate  the  truth  of  the 
suspicions  which  had  been  cast  on  them.  The  result  of 
this  inquiry  was  favourable  to  the  order ; z  but  Philip  held 
firmly  to  his  purpose.  On  September  the  14th,  1307  (the 
festival  of  the  Exaltation  of  the  Cross),  orders  were  issued 
to  his  officers  in  all  quarters,  desiring  them  to  prepare 
a  force  sufficient  for  the  execution  of  certain  instructions 
which  were  not  to  be  opened  until  the  12th  of  October ; 
and  by  these  instructions  they  were  charged  to  arrest  all 
the  Templars  at  one  and  the  same  time — a  measure 
similar  to  those  which  the  kipg  had  already  employed 
towards  the  Jews  and  the  foreign  merchants.  At  the 
dawn  of  the  following  day a  the  orders  were  carried  out 
Oct  m  without  any  difficulty  ;  for  the  Templars,  un¬ 
suspecting  and  unprepared,  made  no  attempt 
at  resistance.  So  closely  was  Philip’s  secret  concealed, 
that,  on  the  12th  of  October,  James  de  Molay  had,  at  his 
request,  been  one  of  those  who  carried  the  wife  of  the 
king’s  brother  Charles  to  the  grave ; b  and  within  a  few 
hours  the  master  and  his  brethren  were  arrested,  and 
conveyed  to  prison  by  a  force  under  the  command  of 

1  Proc.  ii.  305  ;  Maillard,  89.  1  Clement,  letter  of  May  24,  1307, 

u  Raynouard,  17.  in  Baluz.  ii.  75  ;  Giesel.  VI.  iii.  5 ; 

x  This  was  against  the  statutes  of  Havem.  200. 
the  Templars.  See  Wilcke,  i.  229,  277.  a  W.  Nang.  cont.  60 

y  Vertot,  i.  477.  b  Gir.  de  Frach.  in  Bouq.  xxi.  29. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1307. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


23 


William  of  Nogaret.  The  king  took  possession  of  the 
Temple,  and  throughout  the  kingdom  the  property  of  the 
order  was  placed  under  seal  by  kis  officers/5 

Philip  lost  no  time  in  following  up  the  arrest  of  the 
Templars.  Next  day  the  canons  of  the  cathedral  and  the 
masters  of  the  theological  faculty  in  the  university  were 
assembled  in  the  chapter-house  of  Notre  Dame.  The 
question  was  proposed  to  them  whether  the  king  might 
of  his  own  authority  proceed  against  a  religious  order  ; d 
and,  although  the  answer  was  not  immediately  given,  it 
was  foreseen  and  acted  on — that  the  secular  judge  was 
not  entitled  to  take  cognisance  of  heresy,  unless  in  cases 
remitted  to  him  by  the  church ;  but  that  he  might  pro¬ 
perly  arrest  suspected  persons,  and  might  keep  them  for 
ecclesiastical  judgment.6  On  the  following  day,  which 
was  Sunday,  the  pulpits  were  filled  with  friars,  who  were 
charged  to  denounce  the  alleged  crimes  of  the  Templars; 
and  some  of  the  king’s  ministers  addressed  assembled 
crowds  on  the  same  subject/  Within  a  week  from  the 
time  of  the  arrest,  Philip  set  on  foot  an  inquiry  under  his 
confessor,  William  Imbert,  who  also  held  the  office  of 
grand  inquisitor, g  and,  as  a  Dominican,  was 
hostile  to  the  Templars.  The  master  and 
others  of  the  order  were  examined,  and  it  is  said  that  De 
Molay  admitted  the  truth  of  almost  all  the  charges/1  In 
other  parts  of  France  also  the  investigation  was  carried 
on  at  the  same  time  under  the  general  superintendence 
of  Imbert/ 

By  taking  it  on  himself  to  direct  an  inquiry  into  such 
charges  against  a  body  which  was  especially  connected 
with  the  Roman  see,  the  king  gave  great  umbrage  to  the 

0  W.  Nang.  cont.  60;  Antonin.  362  3.  of  bringing  the  matter  before  a  lawful 
d  Vita  I.  Clem.  9.  e  lb.  12.  assembly,  xxxv. 

f  lb.  9-10 ;  W.  Nang,  cont  60.  Ray-  s  See  the  Proce3,  ii.  277,  seqq.  ; 
nouard  remarks  on  the  democratic  Dupuy,  Append,  li. ,  lii. 
tendency  of  attempting  to  gain  the  h  Proc.  ii.  305-6;  W.  Nang.  cont.  60 ; 
popular  mind  by  such  means  instead  Joh.  S.  Victor.  22.  ‘  Martin,  iv.  474. 


24 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST 


Book  VIII. 


pope,  who  wrote  to  him  in  strong  terms  of  remonstrance, 
desiring  that  the  prisoners  should  be  made  over  to  two 
cardinais  and  reserved  for  his  own  judgment,  suspending 
tire  powers  of  inquisitors  and  of  bishops  over  them,  and 
ordering  that  their  property  should  be  kept  inviolate  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Holy  Land.  At  the  same  time  the  pope 
declared  iris  willingness  to  co-operate  with  Philip  by 
desiring  other  sovereigns  to  arrest  the  Templars  within 
their  dominions.11  To  these  demands  Philip,  after  some 
delay,  professed  to  yield  :  and  by  this  concession  he  was 
able  to  overcome  Clement’s  opposition.1 

As  in  the  case  of  Boniface,  the  king  resolved  to  get  up 
a  national  demonstration  of  concurrence  in  his  policy ; 
and  with  this  view  the  estates  of  the  realm  were  con¬ 
voked  at  Tours  in  May  1308.  From  such  an  assembly 
the  Templars  could  expect  no  favour.  They  were  (for 
reasons  which  have  been  already  explained)  hated  by 
the  nobles  and  by  the  clergy  ;  and  the  commons  were 
prepossessed  against  them  by  the  tales  which  had  lately 
been  circulated.  To  deal  with  the  assembled  estates 
was  an  easy  task  for  the  subilety  of  Nogaret  (to  whom 
the  eight  chief  barons  of  Languedoc  had  entrusted  their 
proxies)  and  of  Plasian ;  and  the  meeting  resulted  in  a 
memorial  by  which  the  king  was  entreated  to  go  on  with 
the  process  against  the  Templars,  even  although  the 
ecclesiastical  power  should  refuse  to  support  him.m 

While  the  French  estates  were  sitting  at  Tours,  the 

murder  of  Albert  of  Austria,  by  causing  a 
May  1,  1368.  .  ’  :  ,  .  0 

vacancy  m  the  empire,  suggested  to  Philip  a 

new  object  of  ambition,  for  the  attainment  of  which  he 

desired  to  secure  the  pope’s  assistance,  and  found  it 

necessary  to  deal  tenderly  with  him.11  Repairing  from 

k  Dupuy,  ii.  97-100;  Vita  I.  Clem.  ,n  Vita  I.  Clem.,  p.  12;  Rayriouard, 
10;  Baluz.  ii.  75-6;  Ptol.  Luc.  in  41-2,  Hcfele,  vi.  381. 

Murat,  xi.  1229  ;  Boutaric,  132.  '*  See  hereaiter. 

1  Baluz.  i.  12-13  ;  iiefele,  vi.  380. 


Chap.  1.  a.ix  1307-8. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


25 


Tours  to  Poitiers,  he  laid  before  Clement  the  memorial 
of  the  estates,  and  offered  to  produce  convincing  evidence 
as  to  the  guilt  of  the  Templars.  Seventy-two  members 
of  the  order,  carefully  selected  under  the  king’s  direc¬ 
tions,  were  examined  in  the  pope’s  presence,  where  they 
confessed  the  truth  of  the  charges  against  them ;  and 
some  days  later  they  heard  their  confessions  read,  and 
expressed  their  adhesion  to  them  as  true.0 

The  master  and  other  dignitaries  of  the  order  were  or. 
their  way  to  Poitiers,  when  it  was  found  that  they  were 
too  ill  to  travel  beyond  Chinon ;  p  and  there  they  were 
examined  by  three  cardinals.  It  is  said  that  De  Molay 
confessed  the  charge  of  denying  the  Saviour  in  the 
ceremony  of  reception,  and  that  he  then  referred  the 
cardinals  for  further  evidence  to  a  serving  brother  of 
the  order  who  attended  on  him.*1  The  avowals  of  his 
companions  reached  still  further ; r  but,  in  consideration 
of  their  professions  of  penitence,  the  cardinals  were 
authorized  by  the  pope  to  absolve  them  from  the  sins 
which  they  had  acknowledged,  and  they  commended 
them  to  the  king’s  mercy.s 

The  pope  professed  to  be  convinced  by  the  evidence 
which  had  been  produced,  and  issued  a  number  of 
documents  in  accordance  with  Philip’s  wishes.  The 
powers  of  the  bishops  were  restored,  so  that  each  might 
take  cognisance  of  the  matter  within  his  own  diocese ; 
and,  until  the  meeting  of  the  intended  general  council, 
the  king  was  to  retain  the  custody  of  the  accused,  in  the 
name  of  the  church,  and  was  to  maintain  them  out  of 
their  property,  which  was  allowed  to  remain  in  his  hands.1 


0  Proc.  i.  4 ;  Ptol.  Luc.  c.  30 ;  Vita 
I.  Clem.  13  ;  Havem.  218. 

i’  This  seems  to  have  been  merely 
an  excuse  lor  keeping  them  out  of  the 
pope’s  presence.  R-aynouard,  47 ;  de¬ 
lete,  vi.  389. 

‘i  Baluz.  Vit.  Pap.  Aven.  ii.  121-2; 


Clem,  in  Proc.  i.  4  ;  Havem.  219,  342. 
r  Clem,  in  Proc.  i.  5. 

8  lb.;  cf.  Baluz.  ii.  134. 

1  Vita  1.  Clem.  6,  13  ;  Ptol.  Luc.  c. 
31  ;  W.  Nang.  cont.  61  ;  Dupuy,  Ap¬ 
pend.  lvi. ;  Hefele,  vi.  384-6. 


2  6 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST 


Book-  VII  f. 


On  the  1 2th  of  August  appeared  a  bull,  which  begins 
with  the  words  Ficiens  miser icordiatn.  In  this  the  pope, 
after  having  mentioned  the  reports  which  were  current 
against  the  order,  with  the  avowals  which  had  been 
made  by  some  members  of  it,  both  in  his  own  presence 
and  elsewhere,  and  having  declared  that  King  Philip 
acted  in  the  matter  not  from  rapacity,  but  from  zeal  for 
the  orthodox  faith — appoints  commissioners  to  inquire 
into  the  case  of  the  Templars  in  each  province  of  France, 
and  authorizes  them  to  call  in,  if  necessary,  the  aid  of  the 
secular  arm.u  By  another  document  of  the  same  date  x 
he  orders  that  all  property  belonging  to  the  Templars 
shall  be  given  up,  and  threatens  severe  penalties  against 
all  persons,  however  eminent,  who  should  venture  to 
detain  any  part  of  it.y 

Another  bull,  which  is  known  by  the  title  of  Fegnans  in 
cce /is, z  bears  the  same  date  with  the  Facicns  miser icordiam, 
and  has  much  in  common  with  it.  By  this  bull  the 
archbishop  of  Narbonne,  the  bishop  of  Mende  (William 
Durantis,  nephew  and  successor  of  the  famous  canonist 
and  ritualist  whose  name  he  bore),  the  bishops  of  Bayeux 
and  Limoges,  and  other  ecclesiastics,  were  commissioned 
to  investigate  the  matter  of  the  Templars,  with  a  view  to 
the  intended  general  council;  and  a  list  of  127  questions 
was  annexed,  embodying  the  charges  already  mentioned, 
with  others  of  a  like  odious  character.  The  inquiries  of 
the  commissioners  were  to  concern  themselves  with  the 
order  generally,  while  the  cases  of  individuals  were  left  to 
the  ordinary  judges  of  such  offences. a  Their  first  sitting 
was  on  the  7  th  of  August  1300.  The  confessions  formerly 
made  were  put  in  evidence,  but  an  opportunity  of  dis¬ 
claiming  them  was  allowed ;  and,  although  the  archbishop 

u  Mansi,  xxv.  404.  The  copy  sent  7  See  other  documents  on  this  part 
to  England  is  in  Rymer,  ii.  55.  of  the  subject  in  Baluz.  ii.  97,  teqq. 

x  “Ad  omnium  fere  notitiam.”  z  Mansi,  xxv.  369,  seqq. 

Mansi,  xxv.  406.  *  Proc.  i.  25  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  14. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1308. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


27 


of  Narbonne  and  other  members  of  the  commission  often 
absented  themselves,  as  if  ashamed  of  their  work,  the 
examination  was  in  general  conducted  with  mildness. b 

On  the  26th  of  November,  the  master,  De  Molay,  was 
brought  before  the  commissioners,  and  was  asked  whether 
he  would  defend  the  order.  He  answered  that  it  was 
confirmed  and  privileged  by  the  apostolic  see,  and  con¬ 
trasted  the  hasty  character  of  the  proceedings  against  it 
with  the  long  delay  of  thirty-two  years  which  had  taken 
place  before  the  deposition  of  the  emperor  Frederick  II. 
For  himself,  he  professed  that  he  had  neither  the  wisdom 
nor  the  skill  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the  order ;  but 
that  he  must  deserve  contempt  and  infamy  if  he  should 
fail  to  do  what  he  could  for  a  body  to  which  he  owed 
so  much.  He  spoke  of  himself  as  a  prisoner,  with  but 
four  dcniers  in  the  world,  but  said  that  he  wished  to  have 
assistance  and  counsel,  so  that  the  truth  might  be  known 
with  regard  to  the  order.0  The  commissioners  offered 
him  time  and  other  facilities,  but  told  him  that  in  cases  of 
heresy  the  proceedings  must  be  simple  and  straightfor¬ 
ward,  and  that  the  arts  of  advocates  were  inadmissible.4 
They  then  read  to  him  the  pope’s  bull,  in  which  his  own 
confession  before  the  cardinals  at  Chinon  was  mentioned. 
On  hearing  this  he  crossed  himself  twice,  and  made  other 
demonstrations  of  the  utmost  astonishment  and  indigna¬ 
tion.  “If,”  he  said,  ‘£the  commissioners  were  persons  of 
another  sort,  they  would  hear  something  of  a  different 
kind  from  him.”  To  this  they  replied  that  they  were 
not  to  be  challenged  to  the  ordeal  of  battle  ;  whereupon 
the  old  knight  rejoined  that  he  had  not  thought  of 
such  things,  but  only  wished  that  in  this  case  the  same 
rule  might  be  observed  which  was  observed  by  the 
Turks  and  Saracens — that  false  accusers  should  have 
their  heads  cut  off  or  should  be  cleft  down  the  middle 

b  Havem.  345.  c  Proc.  i.  33.  lb. 


28 


EXAMINATION  OF 


Book  VIII. 


of  their  bodies. e  He  then,  observing  William  of  Plasian, 
who  had  attended  the  session  uninvited,  desired  leave 
to  speak  with  him.  The  old  man’s  confidence  was  won 
by  Plasian’s  professing  to  love  him  as  a  brother  knight, 
and  affecting  to  caution  him  against  imprudence  in  the 
management  of  his  cause ; f  and  the  examination  was 
adjourned  until  the  next  day  but  one.  When  the  master 
was  again  brought  forward,  the  effects  of  Plasian’s  in¬ 
sidious  counsels  were  evident.  He  declared  that,  as  an 
unlearned  and  poor  man,  he  would  not  undertake  the 
defence  of  the  order ;  but,  as  it  appeared  from  the  bull 
that  Clement  had  reserved  to  himself  the  judgment  of 
the  chief  officers,  he  desired  that  he  might  be  carried 
before  the  pope  with  as  little  delay  as  might  be.g  On 
being  told  by  the  commissioners  that  their  business  was 
to  deal  with  the  order,  and  not  with  individuals,  he 
asked  leave  to  state  three  facts  in  favour  of  the  brother¬ 
hood— that  he  knew  of  no  order  in  which  the  divine 
services  were  better  performed  or  with  greater  splendour 
of  ornaments  ;  none  in  which  almsgiving  was  more  liberal; 
no  religious  order,  and  no  kind  of  persons,  who  more 
readily  shed  their  blood  for  the  Christian  faith,  or  were 
more  dreaded  by  its  enemies.11 

The  commissioners  remarked  that  unless  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  faith  were  sound,  all  these  things  were  unavailing ; 
to  which  De  Molay  assented,  and,  in  proof  of  his  own 
orthodoxy,  stated  his  belief  in  the  chief  articles  of  the 
Christian  creed.1  Nogaret,  who  was  present,  asked  some 
questions  as  to  the  stories  which  were  current  against 
the  order,  but  the  master  replied  that  he  had  never  heard 
of  them.  He  begged  Nogaret  and  the  commissioners 
that  he  might  be  allowed  to  enjoy  the  offices  of  religion 

•  Proc.  i.  34.  Havemann  remarks  that  was  untrue,  or  his  confession  had  been 
the  grand-master’s  anger  was  evidently  tampered  with.  347. 
real ;  that  either  the  cardinals  had  1  Proc.  i.  34-5  :  Havem.  231. 

wrung  out  by  torture  something  which  e  Proc.  i.  42-3.  h  lb.  45.  *  lb.  44. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1308-10.  THE  TEMPLARS.  29 

with  the  services  of  his  chaplains,  and  they  promised  to 
see  to  the  matter.k 

Of  the  other  knights  who  were  examined,  some  said 
that  they  would  defend  the  order ; 1  some,  that  they  were 
willing  to  do  so,  if  they  might  have  their  liberty  and  their 
property  restored  to  them,  but  that  in  their  captive  and 
destitute  condition  the  question  was  a  mockery ; m  some, 
apparently  in  the  belief  that  the  order  was  doomed,  and 
tempted  by  the  hope  of  making  good  terms  for  them¬ 
selves,  declined  to  stand  up  for  it ; n  one  expressed  a 
belief  that,  by  administering  the  holy  eucharist  to  those 
who  gave  evidence  on  opposite  sides,  a  Divine  judgment 
might  be  obtained  for  the  manifestation  of  the  truth.0 

On  the  28th  of  March  1310,  about  550  knights  from 
all  parts  of  France,  who  had  professed  themselves  willing 
to  undertake  the  defence  of  the  order,  were  assembled 
in  the  orchard p  of  the  bishop’s  palace  at  Paris.Q  The 
charges  were  read  over  in  Latin  by  a  notary,  but  when  he 
was  proceeding  to  re-state  them  in  French,  a  cry  arose 
that  this  was  needless,  that  they  did  not  care  to  hear  in 
the  vulgar  tongue  such  a  mass  of  charges,  too  vile  and 
abominable  to  be  mentioned/  When  asked  whether  they 
would  defend  the  order,  they  said  that  they  were  ready 
to  do  so  if  permitted  by  their  superiors/  They  were  de¬ 
sired  to  name  six,  eight,  or  ten  persons  as  proxies ;  and 
Peter  of  Boulogne,  a  priest,  was  appointed,  with  three 
others,  although  they  said  that  they  could  not  act  without 
the  master’s  sanction. 

After  the  meeting  in  the  bishop’s  orchard,  the  commis- 


k  Proc.  i.  45. 

1  lb.  57,  61,  etc.  Some  in  a  Romance 
document  make  exception  of  the  ostal 
of  the  king  and  the  pope.  Ib.  141. 
ra  Ib.  81-2. 

*  Ib.  58,  etc.;  Milm.  v.  202.  Thus 
one  says,  “  Quod  nolebat  litigare  cum 
dominis  papa  et  rege  Francorum  ;  ” 


and  adheres  to  his  evidence  in  all  points 
except  as  to  sodomy,  which  he  says  he 
had  confessed  through  fear  of  further 
torture.  Proc.  i.  41.  0  Ib.  69. 

P  “  Viridarium.”  1  Proc.  i.  99. 
r  Ib.  100.  Compare  their  strong 
denunciations  of  the  charges,  ib.  115. 

8  Ib.  101. 


30  TREATMENT  OF  THE  TEMPLARS.  Book  VIII. 

sioners  visited  the  various  houses  in  which  the  Templars 
were  confined.  In  the  course  of  these  visits  it  became 
evident  that  a  great  part  of  the  confessions  to  the  dis¬ 
advantage  of  the  order  had  been  wrung  out  by  torture, 
by  hunger,  or  by  the  other  hardships  of  their  long  im¬ 
prisonment.1  The  torments  which  had  been  applied  are 
described  by  some  of  the  sufferers,  and,  among  them,  by 
one  who  had  been  racked  by  the  original  accuser,  Squin 
of  Florian.u  He  professes  himself  willing  to  endure  death 
in  any  form,  but  unable  to  withstand  the  protracted  agony 
of  the  torture — by  which  some  of  the  knights  declare  that 
they  might  have  been  wrought  to  confess  anything  what¬ 
ever,  even  the  guilt  of  having  put  the  Saviour  to  death. x 
They  entreat  that  no  layman,  or  other  person  who  might 
be  likely  to  disturb  them,  maybe  allowed  to  be  present  at 
the  examinations,  and  protest  that,  when  their  terrors 
and  temptations  are  considered,  it  was  not  wonderful 
that  some  should  lie,  but  rather  that  any  should  venture 
to  speak  the  truth. y  They  complain  bitterly  of  the 
rigorous  treatment  which  they  met  with;  that  they  were 
miserably  lodged,  loaded  with  chains,  and  scantily  fed  ; 
that  they  were  deprived  of  the  ministrations  of  religion ; 
that  their  brethren  who  had  died  in  prison  had  been 
excluded  from  the  last  sacraments  and  from  Christian 
burial;  that  they  themselves,  in  addition  to  other  heavy 
charges,  were  even  compelled  to  pay,  out  of  the  wretched 
pittance  which  was  allowed  them,  a  fee  for  unloosing 
and  refastening  their  chains,  and  a  toll  for  their  passage 
across  the  Seine,2  on  every  day  of  their  examination. 
They  represent  that  they  cannot  act  in  behalf  of  the  order 
without  the  master’s  leave;  they  urgently  entreat  that,  as 
being  nearly  all  unlearned  men,  they  may  be  allowed  the 
assistance  of  advocates,  and  that  so  much  of  the  order's 

1  Proc.  passim  ;  W.  Nang.  cont.  60.  183. 

u  Proc.  i.  36.  y  Proc.  i.  166.  See  Sism.  ix.  206. 

x  lb.  36,  40-1,  75  ;  Menard,  Preuves,  z  Proc.  i.  151. 


Chav*.  I.  A.D.  1310. 


COUNCIL  AT  PARIS. 


31 


property  may  be  granted  to  them  as  would  suffice  for  the 
costs  of  their  defence.51 

In  the  meantime  Philip  had  set  another  engine  in 
motion  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  purpose.  By 
exerting  a  strong  pressure  on  the  pope,  he 
had  contrived  that  Philip  de  Marigny,  a  '  ’  I3I°‘ 
young  brother  of  his  favourite  counsellor,  Enguerrand 
de  Marigny,  should  be  promoted  to  the  archbishoprick 
of  Sens.b  The  new  archbishop  received  his  pall  at 
Easter  1310,  and  on  the  10th  of  May  he  opened  at 
Paris  a  provincial  council,  before  which  a  number  of 
Templars,  who  had  retracted  their  confessions,  were 
brought  to  trial  as  relapsed  heretics.  Some  of  them 
yielded,  and  were  allowed  to  escape  altogether,  or  with 
slight  punishment ;  others  were  put  to  penance,  or  were 
sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  life ;  but  those  who 
adhered  to  their  retractation  were  condemned  to  be 
made  over  to  the  secular  arm — such  of  them  as  belonged 
to  the  clerical  order  being  previously  degraded.0 

While  the  commissioners  were  engaged  in  their  investi¬ 
gations,  they  were  informed  of  the  summary  processes 
by  which  the  archbishop  of  Sens  was  sentencing  men  to 
death,  and  the  four  chosen  defenders  of  the  order  put 
in  an  appeal  to  them,  lest  the  knights  who  had  offered 
to  defend  it  should  be  dealt  with  in  like  manner ;  but 
they  answered  that  they  had  no  power  to  interfere,  as 
the  archbishop  was  independent  of  them  by  virtue  of  the 
pope’s  late  decree,  which  had  restored  to  the  French 


a  Proc.  i.  100,  126-7,  etc- 
b  Raynouard,  92;  Michelet,  iii.  176. 
c  W.  Nang.  cont.  63.  Burning  had 
been  threatened  in  the  pope’s  name  as 
the  punishment  of  any  who  should  be 
obstinate.  There  is  some  mystery  as 
to  the  letter  of  Philip  Vouet  and  John 
de  Janville  in  which  the  threat  is  con¬ 
veyed.  (Proces,  i.  71-2.)  The  fate  of 
the  Templars  is  thus  described  by 


John  of  St.  Victor,  one  of  Clement’s 
biographers :  (1)  Some  put  off  the 
habit,  were  absolved,  and  set  free  ;  (2 
those  who  retracted  their  confession 
were  burnt  ;  (3)  those  who  refused  to 
confess  were  kept  in  prison  ;  (4)  peni¬ 
tents  who  confessed  were  forgiven  and 
set  free.  Bouq.  xxi.  655,  658  ;  Baluz 
Vitae  Pap.  Aven.  i.  22. 


BURNING  OF  TEMPLARS. 


Book  VIII. 


32 


prelates  their  ordinary  jurisdiction  in  such  matters. 
They  sent,  however,  a  message  to  the  council,  request¬ 
ing  that  it  would  delay  its  proceedings,  as  the  report 
of  these  had  so  terrified  the  witnesses  before  the  com¬ 
mission  as  to  render  them  incapable  of  giving  evidence 
calmly  ;  but  their  envoys  were  not  allowed  to  see  the 
archbishop,  and  they  made  no  further  attempt  to  inter¬ 
pose.*1 

On  the  1 2th  of  May  fifty-four  Templars  were,  by  the 
sentence  of  the  council,  conveyed  to  a  field  near  the 
convent  of  St.  Antony,  where  a  stake  had  been  prepared 
for  each.e  It  was  announced  that  any  one  who  would 
confess  should  be  set  at  liberty,  and  the  unhappy  knights 
were  beset  by  the  importunities  of  their  kindred  and 
friends,  entreating  them  to  save  themselves  by  accepting 
this  offer.  But  although  deeply  affected  by  the  feelings 
which  are  natural  in  such  a  case,  not  one  of  the  whole 
number  flinched.  They  endured  the  slow  kindling  of 
the  faggots,  and  the  gradual  progress  of  the  flames  which 
were  to  consume  their  bodies  ;  and  with  their  last  breath 
they  attested  their  orthodoxy  by  invoking  the  Saviour, 
the  blessed  Virgin,  and  the  saints.f  The  courage  and 
constancy  of  these  brave  men  impressed  the  popular 
mind  deeply  and  widely  but  it  soon  became  manifest 
that  their  fate  had  struck  terror  into  the  hearts  of  many 
among  their  brethren.  On  the  following  day,  a  Templar 
named  Aimeri  de  Villars  was  brought  before  the  com¬ 
missioners,  and  appeared  as  if  beside  himself  from  terror 
and  excitement.  With  vehement  gestures,  beating  his 
breast,  tossing  his  arms  in  the  air,  and  imprecating  on 


d  Proc.  i.  259,  274. 
e  Raynouard  gives  the  names  of 
forty-six  (110-11),  and  shows  that  the 
treatment  of  these  men  as  relapsed 
heretics  was  condemned  by  high  au¬ 
thorities  at  the  time.  106-7. 

f  Vita  I.  Clem.  17  ;  G.  Vill.  viii.  92  ; 


Antonin.  274 ;  Cornel.  Zantfliet,  in 
Martene,  Coll.  Ampl.  v.  159-60.  The 
continuer  of  William  of  Nangis  makes 
the  number  of  these  sufferers  fifty-nine, 
p.  63. 

g  W.  Nang,  contin.  63  ;  Gir.  Frach. 
contin.  34. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1310-1.  EXAMINATIONS  CONTINUED. 


33 


himself  the  most  frightful  curses  unless  his  words  were 
true,  he  declared  that  the  charges  against  the  order  were 
all  false,  although  under  extremity  of  torture  he  had 
before  admitted  some  of  them ;  but  that  the  sight  of  the 
victims,  as  they  were  dragged  in  carts  to  the  place  of 
execution  on  the  preceding  day,  had  so  terrified  him  that, 
rather  than  endure  the  fire,  he  was  ready  to  own  whatever 
might  be  imputed  to  him,  even  if  it  were  said  that  he  had 
slain  the  Saviour.h 

The  commissioners,  in  disgust  at  the  cruelties  which 
had  been  committed,  and  in  despair  of  obtaining  trust¬ 
worthy  evidence  so  long  as  the  impression  of  the  terror 
should  be  fresh,  adjourned  their  sittings  from  the  19th  to 
the  30th  of  May,  and  afterwards  for  a  longer  time ;  and 
when  they  met  again,  in  the  middle  of  October,  the  effect 
of  the  late  proceedings  was  plainly  shown.  Many  knights, 
who  had  professed  their  readiness  to  defend  the  order,  now 
renounced  the  defence,  lest  they  should  make  themselves 
liable  to  the  doom  of  relapsed  heretics  from  the  archbishop 
of  Sens  and  his  suffragans.*  Of  the  four  chosen  repre¬ 
sentatives,  Peter  of  Boulogne  had  disappeared ;  another 
had  become  disqualified  through  having  been  degraded 
from  his  orders  by  the  council ;  and  the  remaining  two 
declared  that,  after  the  loss  of  their  colleagues,  they  were 
no  longer  equal  to  the  task.k  From  this  time  the  evidence 
before  the  commissioners  was  more  in  accordance  with 
the  wishes  of  the  prosecutors  than  before;  it  seemed 
as  if  the  fate  of  the  order  were  hopeless,  and  as  if  its 
members  were  bent  only  on  trying,  by  whatever  means, 
to  secure  their  individual  safety.1  Between  August  1309 


h  Proc.  I.  275-6. 

1  lb.  282  ;  Havem.  351. 
k  Proc.  i.  286-7. 

1  Milm.  v.  181.  M.  Michelet,  in 
his  preface  to  vol.  ii.  of  the  ‘  Proces,’ 
says  that  the  denials  are  “almost  all 
identical,”  and  that  the  confessions 

VOL.  VII. 


are  “  all  different,  varied  by  special 
circumstances  which  give  them  a  pe¬ 
culiar  character  of  veracity.”  On  the 
other  hand,  Dean  Milman  says,  “  I 
confess  that  my  impression  of  the  fact 
is  different ;  though  I  am  unwilling  to 
set  my  opinion  on  this  point  against 

'J 


34 


CHARGES  AGAINST 


Book  VIII. 


and  the  end  of  May  1311,  two  hundred  and  thirty-one 
witnesses  were  examined ;  and  at  length  the  commis¬ 
sioners  sent  off  the  report  of  the  evidence  to  the  pope 
without  pronouncing  any  judgment  of  their  own  on  it.m 
In  the  meantime  both  councils  and  commissioners  in 
other  parts  of  France  had  been  engaged  on  the  affair 
of  the  Templars.  The  only  council  of  which  a  record 
has  been  preserved  is  one  of  the/  province  of  Reims, 
which  met  at  Senlis ;  and  by  its  sentence  the  body 
of  a  dead  Templar  was  dug  up  and  burnt,  while  nine 
members  of  the  order  perished  at  the  stake,  steadfastly 
declaring  their  innocence  of  the  crimes  imputed  to  them.n 

We  may  now  proceed  to  examine  the  charges  which 
were  brought  against  the  order  of  the  Temple,  with  the 
evidence  which  was  drawn  forth  by  the  inquiry. 

The  ceremonies  of  initiation  are  described  with  an 
amount  of  variety  which  proves  that  they  must  have 
differed  according  to  places,  times,  and  other  circum¬ 
stances  ;  but  the  avowals  of  those  who  confessed  may  be 
thus  summed  up  as  to  their  general  substance.0  The 
candidate,  on  bended  knees,  requested  that  he  might  be 
admitted  into  the  society  of  the  order,  and  might  be 
allowed  to  share  in  its  bread  and  water  and  clothing. 
He  was  told,  by  way  of  answer,  that  what  he  asked  was 
a  great  thing.  He  was  warned  that  he  must  prepare 
himself  to  endure  hardships  ;  that  he  must  not  judge 
of  the  order  by  the  splendid  appearance  and  equip¬ 
ments  of  the  knights  ;  but  that  he  might  have  to  walk 


that  of  the  writer.'  (v.  185  ;  cf.  Havem. 
343.)  Having  read  the  evidence  with 
the  knowledge  that  it  had  been  thus 
variously  appreciated,  I  have  no  hesi¬ 
tation  in  siding  with  the  dean  of  St- 
Paul’s.  It  is  remarkable  that  when 
any  new  circumstance  appears  in  the 
evidence  of  a  witness,  it  is  forthwith 
commonly  repeated  by  a  number  of 
others. 


m  Proc.  ii.  270-4. 

n  Bern.  Guidon.  72  ;  W.  Nang.  cont. 
63.  For  the  proceedings  of  the  Nismes 
commissioners,  see  Menard,  i.  Preuves, 
167,  seqq. 

0  For  the  order  prescribed  by  the 
statutes,  see  Maillard  de  Chambures, 
332,  seqq.,  488  ;  comp.  Havem.  105- 
6. 


Chap.  I. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


35 


instead  of  riding,  to  be  hungry  when  he  might  wish  to 
eat,  to  thirst  when  he  might  wish  to  drink,  to  go  when  he 
might  wish  to  stay,  to  watch  when  he  might  wish  to  sleep, 
to  give  up  his  liberty  for  absolute  obedience  and  servi¬ 
tude.  If  he  still  persevered  in  the  desire  to  be  admitted, 
he  was  then  questioned  as  to  his  freedom  from  impedi¬ 
ments,  such  as  debts  or  secret  ailments ;  he  was  required 
to  profess  his  Christian  faith,  and  in  some  cases  to  kiss 
the  cross  ;  p  he  took  the  monastic  vows  of  poverty,  chas¬ 
tity,  and  obedience,  and  swore  to  observe  the  statutes  of 
the  order ;  after  which  an  instruction  in  his  duties  as  a 
member  of  it  was  addressed  to  him.  Then,  according 
to  the  confessions  of  many  Templars,  the  new  knight 
was  led  into  some  small  chapel  or  other  secret  place ;  a 
cross,  either  plain  or  with  an  image  of  the  Saviour  on 
it,  was  produced;  and  he  was  required  (in  some  cases 
thrice) q  to  deny  God  and  to  spit  on  the  cross — perhaps 
also  to  trample  on  it.  He  was  next  required  to  kiss  the 
receiver  on  various  parts  of  his  body — sometimes  in  the 
most  obscene  and  degrading  manner.  In  some  instances, 
it  was  said,  the  new  member  was  told  that  unnatural 
lust  was  permitted  in  the  order  :  sometimes  an  idol  was 
produced,  a  cord  was  passed  round  its  head,  and  this 
(or,  at  least,  a  cord  which  was  supposed  to  bear  some 
mysterious  meaning)  was  very  commonly  worn  by  the 
Templars.  In  some  instances  these  offensive  ceremonies 
were  not  required  until  some  days  after  the  more  legiti¬ 
mate  form  of  reception/ 

As  to  the  alleged  abominations  of  the  initiation,  there  is 
first  the  question  of  fact ;  and  with  regard  to  such  of  the 
circumstances  as  may  be  accepted  for  facts,  there  remains 
the  question  how  they  are  to  be  understood.  A  late 
writer  supposes  the  whole  to  be  symbolical — that  the 

p  Eg.,  Proc.  i.  567.  Eg  ,  lb.  205.  an  interval  of  about  two  months  (iL 

r  lb.  444-5.  One  witness  speaks  of  205). 


36 


CHARGES  AGAINST 


Book  VIII. 


applicant  for  admission  was  represented  as  sunk  in  the 
depths  of  sin  and  apostasy,  and  that  from  this  state  the 
order  was  supposed  to  raise  him.8  But  of  this  ingenious 
theory  there  is  no  proof,  nor  has  the  supposed  symbolism 
any  real  analogy  to  the  Festival  of  Fools  and  other  such 
things,  with  which  the  writer  in  question  would  compare 
it*  Rather  we  may  perhaps  suppose  that  the  ceremonies 
were  imposed — injudiciously  and  blamably  indeed,  but 
without  necessarily  involving  any  evil  meaning — as  a  test 
of  the  obedience  which  had  just  been  professed  ; 1  in  order 
to  typify,  by  the  denial  of  that  which  had  been  acknow¬ 
ledged  as  holiest,11  by  compliance  with  degrading  and 
disgusting  requirements,  the  entire  and  unreserved  sub¬ 
mission  which  the  new  member  of  the  order  had  become 
bound  to  yield  to  the  commands  of  his  superiors.x  That 
this  intention  was  not  explained,  would  seem  to  have 
been  of  the  very  essence  of  the  system :  the  Templars 
were  left  to  interpret  it  for  themselves  ;  they  were  for- 


*  Michelet,  iii.  127-8,  203-5. 

*  Thus  one  deposes  that  it  was  said 
to  him,  “  Tu  jurasti  obedire  omnibus 
prseceptoribus  tuis  et  praeceptis  quae 
tibi  fierent ;  ego  volo  probare  si  ser- 
vabis  quod  jurasti ;  unde  praecipio  tibi 
quod  abneges  Deum,”  And,  on  his 
expressing  horror,  it  was  added  that 
many  things  were  said  with  the  mouth 
to  which  the  heart  did  not  consent. 
Proc.  ii.  200 ;  cf.  260. 

u  See  Proc.  i.  342.  The  denial  of 
the  Saviour  seems  to  be  established, 
according  to  Gieseler,  who,  however, 
thinks  that  it  may  have  been  derived 
from  some  Saracen  spell,  and  that  the 
Templars  submitted  to  this  in  the  hope 
of  making  all  right  with  the  Church 
afterwards.  II.  iii.  14-17. 

x  One  witness  supposes  that  these 
things  were  required,  “  ad  hoc,  ut 
esset  eis  magis  subjectus,  et  in  majo- 
rem  confusionem  suam,  si  vellet  erigere 
se  contra  superiorem  suura.”  (Proc. 
i.  361  ;  cf.  ib.  5x6.)  One  was  required 


on  the  first  day  to  kiss  a  crucifix  and 
a  picture  of  the  crucifixion;  but  a 
week  after,  two  servitors  made  him 
spit  on  these  and  deny  God.  On  his 
threatening  to  tell  the  receiver,  they 
say  that  if  he  do  they  will  kill  him.  (Ib. 
i.  561.)  Another  says  that  he  believed 
it  to  be  a  sin  to  spit  on  the  cross,  but 
that  he  did  it  because  of  his  oath.  (i. 
215  ;  cf.  i.  622  ;  ii.  5.)  In  England, 
John  of  Stoke,  a  chaplain,  deposed 
that  he  was  received  without  any  im¬ 
proprieties,  but  that  some  time  after 
a  master  questioned  him  as  to  the  cir¬ 
cumstances,  and  then  said,  “  We  shall 
soon  see  whether  you  are  obedient ;  ” 
whereupon  a  crucifix  was  brought,  and 

the  master  said  that  he  who  was  there 

• 

represented  was  not  God,  but  was  put 
to  death  for  claiming  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  : — “  Ego  ipsefui  in  locu  ubi  natus 
fuit  et  crucifixus.”  John  was  then 
compelled  by  threats  to  deny  the 
Saviour.  Wilkins,  ii.  387-8. 


Chap.  I. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


37 


bidden  to  communicate  with  each  other  as  to  the  mode 
of  reception,  and  many  of  them  may  have  failed  to  under¬ 
stand  a  meaning  which  may  nevertheless  have  been  really 
intended.  In  many  cases  no  such  ceremonies  were  en¬ 
forced  at  all;y  many  Templars  asserted  that  they  had 
never  heard  of  them  until  after  the  arrest  of  the  order  ;z 
and  men  who  deposed  that  they  themselves  had  been 
obliged  to  submit  to  them  deposed  also  that  in  later  re¬ 
ceptions,  which  they  had  witnessed  or  in  which  they  had 
themselves  acted  the  part  of  receivers,  the  offensive  forms 
were  not  required.*1  The  witnesses  all  declared  that  they 
had  been  horrified  at  hearing  these  proposed — that  they 
would  rather  have  been  on  their  way  to  the  galleys,  in 
the  depths  of  the  earth,  even  in  purgatory  itself,  than  be 
put  to  such  a  trial, b  and  that  they  had  earnestly  endea¬ 
voured  to  escape  it.  In  some  cases  resistance  had  been 
successful  in  obtaining  an  exemption  from  the  ceremonies 
either  wholly  or  in  part ;  c  but  more  commonly  the  novices 
were  told  that  they  were  bound  to  submit,  in  virtue  of  the 
obedience  which  they  had  sworn,  and  because  these  were 
points  established  in  the  order; d  while,  for  the  satisfaction 
of  their  scruples,  they  were  assured  that  the  denial  of  the 
Saviour  was  merely  a  form,  a  jest,  an  imitation  of  St. 
Peter’s  denials ;  that  it  was  to  be  made  with  the  mouth 
only,  not  with  the  heart,  and  was  not  contrary  to  Chris- 


y  E.g.,  Proc.  ii.  83. 

*  See  ib.  88.  These  seem  to  have 
been  from  Saitonge,  Perigord,  and 
that  district. 

8  See  Proc.  i.  268,  292,  379  416-17. 
Wilcke  supposes  that  there  were  vari¬ 
ous  degrees  in  the  order,  each  having 
an  initiation  of  its  own  (i.  349).  But 
of  this  there  seems  to  be  no  proof. 

b  E.g.,  i.  324,  332,  334;  ii.  179- 
One  declares  that  he  would  rather 
have  been  at  Rome  (ib.  330).  Another 
says,  “et  orripilavit,  id  est,  eriguere 
pilli  sui.”  Ib.  242. 


c  E.g.,  i.  250,  386,  404,  417,  426,  576, 
579.  587  1  ii-  257-8. 

d  Ib.  i.  302,  312,  334,  358,  501,  etc. 
It  is  deposed  that  one  receiver  wept 
at  the  necessity  of  enforcing  the  denial  ; 
and  that  afterwards,  on  being  asked 
why  such  things  were  done,  he  said 
that  he  knew  no  other  ground  than 
custom  (568-9).  The  denials,  etc.,  were 
commonly  said  to  have  been  intro¬ 
duced  by  a  master  who  had  been  a 
captive  among  the  Saracens — five  hun¬ 
dred  (!)  years  ago,  as  one  witness  had 
been  told  (ib.  258). 


38 


CHARGES  AGAINST 


Book  VIII. 


tian  religion,  or  dangerous  to  the  soul®  All  declared 
that  their  denials  had  been  made  with  the  mouth  alone, 
and  some  professed  to  have  uttered  a  like  declaration  at 
the  time  when  they  were  received.  All  declared  that 
their  spitting  had  not  been  on  the  crucifix  or  cross,  but 
near  it,f  and  some  had  been  told  by  their  receivers  that 
the  mere  pretence  of  spitting  was  enough. «  Although  they 
were  usually  told  they  must  make  no  confession  except 
to  the  clergy  of  the  order, h  they  had  invariably  carried 
their  tale  of  the  initiation  to  some  other  confessor,  who 
had  listened  to  it  with  astonishment  and  horror,  and  had 


enjoined  some  penances  by 

e  Dupuy,  211-12  ;  Proc.  i.  32T,  325, 
462,  464,  496-7,  504,  510  ;  ii.  no,  260. 
355-6,  362,  576.  Godfrey  de  Thoton 
was  told  that,  if  he  would  comply  with 
what  was  required,  it  should  after¬ 
wards  be  explained  to  him,  but  in  case 
of  refusal,  he  would  be  placed  “  in 
tali  loco  quod  non  videret  pedes  suos.” 
Ib.  i.  222-3  >  cf-  307. 

f  In  some  cases  they  were  merely 
required  to  spit  on  the  ground,  there 
being  no  cross  there.  Ib.  i.  609,  615, 
912  ;  ii.  232. 

g  E.g.,  Ib.  i.  253,  366,  480,  483,  519. 
One  deposes  that,  after  he  had  com¬ 
plied,  the  receiver  “incepit  sttbridere, 
quasi  dispiciendo  ipsum  testem,  ut  sibi 
visum  fuit.”  (Ib.  53.)  To  another  the 
receiver  said,  “  Vade  fatue,  confi- 
tearis."  (Ib  590.)  To  one  witness  a 
plain  cross  was  shown,  and  he  was 
asked  whether  he  believed  "quod  in 
dicta  cruce  erat  propheta.”  He  an¬ 
swered,  “  No,  because  there  is  no 
image,”  and  was  then  required  to  spit, 
(ii.  549.)  Another  was  told  that  he 
ought  not  to  believe  in  Him  who  was 
represented  by  the  crucifix,  ' ‘sed  in 
Deum  qui  erat  in  paradiso.”  (Ib.  332.) 
This  might  have  grown  out  of  a  caution 
against  the  vulgar  excess  of  regard 
for  images,  as  another  Templar  was 
told  that  the  crucifix  was  but  "  frus- 


way  of  expiation.1  Some- 

tumligni,  et  Deus  nostererat  inccelis” 
(ib.  215) ;  but  another  witness  goes 
further,  and  states  that  he  was  told 
that  he  should  not  believe  on  Him  who 
was  represented  by  the  crucifix,  “qui 
fuerat  falsus  propheta,  et  quod  negarei 
eum.”  (Ib.  552;  cf.  ii.  51.)  One  knight, 
on  being  required  to  deny  "  lo  pro¬ 
pheta,”  said  he  did  not  know  who  was 
meant,  but  that,  if  it  were  the  devil, 
he  denied  him  with  all  his  works  (i. 
417).  Another  says  that,  being  asked 
to  deny  "  lo  propheta,”  he  did  not 
understand  who  was  meant,  and,  being 
young,  complied  ;  but  that  he  felt 
remorse  because  he  was  told  that  the 
Jews  styled  the  Saviour  so  (ii.  168)  : 
another,  that,  the  name  used  being 
Jesus,  he  was  told  that  it  was  a  pro¬ 
phet  named  Joshua,  but  that  he  must 
not  ask  (ii.  230).  One  professes  to 
have  been  told  by  his  uncle,  who  had 
witnessed  his  reception,  that  Christ 
was  not  crucified  for  our  sins,  but  for 
His  own  (ii.  242).  One  was  told  that 
he  ought  not  to  believe  in  Christ,  be¬ 
cause  He  was  a  false  prophet,  but 
only  "in  Deum  supenorem’’  (ii.  384). 
John  of  Stoke,  a  chaplain  of  the  order, 
who  was  examined  in  England,  made 
a  like  declaration.  Wilkins,  ii.  387-8. 

h  E.g.,  Proc.  i.  295. 

1  E.g.,  Ib.  210. 


Chap.  I. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


39 


times  the  receivers  themselves,  while  requiring  submission, 
told  the  candidates  that  they  might  confess  to  whomso¬ 
ever  they  would. k  In  one  case  the  confessor  suggested 
that  the  denial  of  the  Saviour  had  been  required  in  order 
to  test  the  novice’s  spirit,  and  that,  if  he  had  steadfastly 
refused,  he  would  have  been  considered  fit  to  be  sent 
earlier  to  the  Holy  Land,  and  to  encounter  the  dangers 
of  intercourse  and  captivity  among  the  infidels.1  All  the 
witnesses  agreed  in  testifying  that  after  their  admission 
no  attempt  had  been  made  to  confirm  them  in  apostasy  ;m 
that  the  order  adored  the  cross  on  Good  Friday  and  on 
the  festivals  of  its  Invention  and  Exaltation ;  n  and  that 
they  considered  their  brethren  in  general  to  be  true 
Christian  believers,  although  some  of  them  suspected 
that  those  who  had  enforced  such  ceremonies  at  the 
reception  could  not  be  sound  in  the  faith.0 

With  regard  to  the  kissing  which  was  said  to  be  a  part 
of  the  rite  of  admission  to  the  order,  and  to  have  been 
the  subject  of  much  ridicule  from  their  rivals  of  the 
Hospital,?  it  appears  that  the  clerical  members  were 
usually  excused  from  it ;  that  a  formal  appearance  of 
kissing  the  receiver  between  the  shoulders,  or  in  some 
such  place,  was  considered  to  be  enough  ;  and  that  when 
objections  were  taken  to  any  further  kissing,  it  was  never 
enforced. q 

The  most  revolting  of  the  accusations  against  the 
order  might  be  supposed  to  have  grown  out  of  a  charge 
which  was  given  to  the  new  members  that  each  should 
share  his  bed  with  a  brother,  if  required1- — a  charge  of 


k  E.g.,  525,  555.  1  lb.  590;  cf.  405. 
m  lb.  208,  584. 
n  lb.  555  ;  ii  463,  467. 

0  Ib.i.  309,  313,  318,340.  Plb.  ii.  153. 
q  E.g.,  i.  298,  306,  342,  358,  483, 
622  ;  ii.  45,  79.  Some  witnesses  swore 
that,  instead  of  kissing  the  receiver, 
they  had  been  kissed  by  him  “  in  fine 


spin*  dorsi  ”  (i.  552  ;  ii.  37)  ;  or  that 
the  receiver  gave  them  the  choice  (i. 
456).  Ralph  de  Gisi  is  said,  while  ad¬ 
mitting  new  members,  to  have  shown 
in  his  countenance  his  disgust  at  the 
objectionable  ceremonies,  i.  569. 

r  lb.  i.  568  ;  ii.  317,  332,  346,  389  ; 
Havem.  369. 


40 


CHARGES  AGAINST 


Eook  VIII 


which  the  true  sense  was,  that  they  should  be  ready  to 
give  up  their  own  convenience  for  that  of  others.55  Some 
witnesses,  indeed,  deposed  that  they  were  expressly 
authorized  to  indulge  in  unnatural  lusts.1  But,  even 
if  this  were  true,  the  real  intention  might  have  been, 
not  to  sanction  such  abominations,  but  (as  has  been 
already  suggested  with  regard  to  the  denials)  to  try  the 
spirit  of  the  new  members  by  the  shock  of  an  apparent 
contrast  with  the  vows  of  religion  and  purity  which  had 
just  been  taken;11  and  it  is  certain  that  acts  of  the 
kind  in  question  were  denounced  in  the  institutes  of  the 
Templars  as  deadly  sins,x  that  they  were  regarded  with 
abhorrence,  and  that,  in  the  very  rare  instances  which 
were  detected, y  they  were  visited  with  severe  punishment, 
such  as  lifelong  imprisonment  in  chains,  or  expulsion 
from  the  order.2 

The  tales  as  to  the  use  of  idols  are  very  indistinct  and 
perplexing.  Some  witnesses  deposed  that  an  idol  had 
been  produced  at  their  reception,  but  could  give  no  satis¬ 
factory  account  of  it.  They  said  that  they  had  been  too 
much  disturbed  in  mind  to  look  at  it;  one  stated  that  at 
the  sight  of  it  he  had  run  away  in  terror.51  And  the  de¬ 
scriptions  of  its  appearance  were  very  various:  that  it 
had  one  head,  and  that  it  had  three ;b  that  it  had  two  feet 
in  front  and  two  behind  ;c  that  it  was  a  bare  human  skull, 


*  The  Rule  directed  that  they  should 
sleep  separately,  “  nisi  permagna  causa 
vel  necessitas  evenerit.”  c.  71  (Patrol, 
clxvi.  872). 

1  Menard,  i.  174-5;  Proc.  i.  249,  287, 
372,  375,  544,  627,  etc. 

u  Thus  many  say  (e.g.,  i.  396),  that 
the  charge  was  given  to  them,  but  that 
they  did  not  believe  it  to  be  seriously 
meant,  or  to  be  acted  on. 

*  “Lequel  cst  si  ort  et  si  puant,  et 
si  orrible,  qtie  il  ne  doist  estre  nomes.” 
Regie,  c.  122,  in  Maillard,  390;  cf. 
456 ;  Proc.  i.  196,  382 ;  ii.  215,  460. 


One  witness,  at  his  reception,  sixty- 
two  years  before  the  trial,  had  been 
warned  against  such  things.  Proc.  i.  7. 

y  As  to  this,  the  confessions  are 
utterly  contradictory  to  what  Von 
Hammer  says  as  to  frequency.  Mys- 
ter.  Baphoin.  70. 

*  Maillard,  456;  Proc.  ii.  223; 
Havem.  139. 

a  Proc.  i.  399,  400 ;  ii.  193,  367. 
b  Menard,  i.  171,  where  the  Templars 
are  said  to  have  relied  on  the  idol  for 
wealth,  and  for  the  fruitfulness  of  the 
earth.  *  proc.  ii.  210. 


Chap.  I. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


41 


that  it  was  black,  that  it  was  gilt  and  silvered,  that  it 
had  a  long  white  beard,  and  that  its  eyes  were  glowing 
carbuncles  ;d  that  it  was  the  head  of  St.  Peter  or  of  St. 
Blaise, e  of  one  of  St.  Ursula’s  virgin  companions/  of  a 
master  who  had  apostatized  to  Islam  and  had  introduced 
the  guilty  customs  into  the  order, g — or  of  a  cat.h  Some 
declared  that  they  had  often  seen  an  idol — to  which 
the  name  of  Baphomet*  (a  corruption  of  Mahomet) k  was 
given — produced  for  adoration  at  chapters  of  the  order 
at  Montpellier,1  and  even  at  Paris.m  But  there  is  no 
evidence  as  to  actual  use  elsewhere,  nor,  although  the 
suddenness  of  the  arrest  would  have  put  it  out  of  the 
power  of  the  Templars  to  conceal  their  idols,  if  they 
had  possessed  any,  was  any  such  object  discovered  in 
any  of  their  houses.11  Perhaps,  therefore,  the  charge  of 
idolatry  may  have  had  no  other  foundation  than  the 
use  of  reliquaries  made  (as  was  very  common)  in  the 


d  Dupuy,  Append.,  207,  etc.  See 
Havem.  360. 

e  Proc.  ii.  240.  f  lb.  i.  502. 
s  Chron.  de  Melsa,  ii.  249. 
h  V.  Hammer’s  remark  on  this  may 
be  taken  as  a  specimen  of  his  argu¬ 
ment: —  “Sub  cato  de  quo  mentio  fit, 
canem  ideo  intelligendum  esse  credi- 
mus,  quia  nullibi  catus,  sed  ubique 
canis  conspicitur.”  (Myster.  Baphom. 
71.)  John  de  Pollencourt  had  heard, 
but  not  until  after  his  arrest,  that  a  cat 
appeared  at  the  chapters  (Proc.  i. 
378).  Another  had  heard  that  a  cat 
appeared  in  battles  beyond  the  sea, 
but  he  did  not  believe  it.  Ib.  251. 

*  Dupuy,  216. 

k  The  name  appears  thus  in  Pro- 
vengal  literature.  Ramond  of  Agiles 
calls  Mahomet  BaJuoneth,  and  a 
mosque  bafumeria  (Hist.  Hierosol. 
cc.  6,  26,  etc..  Patrol,  civ.;  Herder, 
Philos,  u.  Gesch.  xv.  293,  ed.  Stuttg. 
1829  :  see  Ducange,  s.  v.  Bafumeria). 
It  was  stated  that  in  a  chapter  at  Flo¬ 
rence  one  Templar  said  to  the  others, 


“  Istud  caput  vester  Deus  est  etvester 
Mahumet. (Raynouard,  295  :  see 
von  Nell,  81  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  6,  13). 
Nicolai  supposed  the  word  to  have  a 
gnostic  sense,  meaning  baptism  of 
wisdom,  Pa(f>rj  /xtjtiSos  (or,  as  he  wrote 
it,  ju.?jTov?)  ;  and  in  this  has  been  fol¬ 
lowed  by  Hammer  and  by  Wilcke  (i. 
153).  M.  Michelet  also  inclines  to  the 
same  fancy  (iii.  14S).  Against  Nicolai, 
see  Herder,  1.  c.  287,  seqq.  Against 
Hammer,  see  Raynouard,  in  Michaud, 
v.,  Append,  v. 

1  Proc.  ii.  210,  279,  363.  (This 
witness  says  that  he  adored  it  “  ore  et 
fingendo.”)  Cf.  i.  597  ;  ii.  190  ;  Me¬ 
nard,  211-12  ,  Dupuy,  220.  The  fullest 
testimony  is  that  of  Bernard  de  Sel- 
gues,  at  Nismes,  who  was  evidently 
disposed  to  go  all  lengths.  Menard. 
211. 

m  Proc.  i.  299,  300. 

n  See  ib.  218  ;  Havem.  360  ;  Milm. 
v.  183.  Von  Hammer’s  attempt  to 
controvert  this  (74)  is  unavailing.  See 
Nell,  80. 


42 


CHARGES  AGAINST 


Book  VIII. 


form  of  a  human  head,  to  which  credulity  annexed  the 
wild  stories0  which  were  currents 

The  practice  of  wearing  a  cord  round  the  body  was 
established  by  the  evidence  ;  but  the  object  of  it  was 
very  variously  explained.**  Although  some  witnesses 
deposed  that  the  cord,  which  was  given  to  them  at  their 
initiation,  had  been  previously  applied  to  an  idol,r  the 
greater  number  knew  nothing  of  such  a  contact,  and 
stated  that  the  cord  had  not  been  delivered  to  them 
on  the  part  of  the  order,  but  that  they  were  allowed  to 
procure  it  for  themselves.s 

On  the  question  at  what  time  and  on  what  occasion 
the  offensive  rites  had  been  introduced  into  the  order, 
no  satisfactory  or  consistent  testimony  was  to  be  obtained. 
There  were  stories  of  their  having  been  instituted  by  a 
master  who  had  been  captive  to  a  soldan;1  it  was  said 
by  some  that  they  had  been  used  under  the  last  four 
masters  only;"  but  other  witnesses  declared  that  nothing 
was  known  on  the  subject. x 


0  See  the  tale  about  a  lord  of  Sidon. 
Proc.  i.  645  ;  ii.  140,  223. 

P  One  witness  said  that  the  idol 
which  had  been  used  at  his  reception 
was  publicly  displayed  with  the  relics 
on  solemn  days.  (Proc.  i  502.)  James 
of  Troyes  knew  nothing  of  idols  be¬ 
longing  to  the  order,  but  had  heard 
that  brother  Ralph  of  Gisi  had  a  demon 
of  his  own,  by  whose  help  he  grew 
wise  and  rich.  (Ib.  257.)  For  Ralph 
of  Gisi’s  own  testimony,  see  ib.  ii.  394. 

<i  One  says  that  it  was  by  St.  Ber¬ 
nard’s  direction—/.^.,  according  to  the 
statutes,  which  really  prescribed  no 
such  thing  (Ib.  228) ;  another,  that  it 
was  “  in  signum  castitatis”  (Ib.  231;. 
Gieseler  thinks  that  it  may  have  been 
originally  an  oriental  charm  (II.  iii. 
23).  A  witness  at  Elne  refers  to  our 
Lord’s  words,  “  Let  your  loins  be 
girded  about,”  etc.  (Proc.  ii.  431.) 
Robert  de  Hamilton,  “  usum  cinguli 


fatetur  propter  honestatem,  et  nominat 
eum  cingulum  de  Nasareth,  tactum 
ad  quandam  columnam.”  Wilkins,  ii. 
366. 

r  Menard,  927 ;  Proc.  i.  191,  193, 
206-9.  But  in  this  last  case  there  is 
nothing  about  worshipping  the  head. 

*  Ib.  219,  292,  400.  One  said  that 
he  had  thrown  away  his  cord  on  being 
told  that  it  had  touched  a  head  “ultra 
mare.”  ii.  249. 

1  Ib.  398-400.  u  Ib.  246. 

x  Ib.  i.  392-4.  Wilcke  supposes 
the  secret  doctrines  of  the  order  to 
have  been  adopted  after  the  time 
when  the  bull  “  Omne  datum  opti¬ 
mum,”  a.  d.  1162,  had  allowed  it  to 
have  its  own  clergy  (i.  344).  A  witness 
states  that  the  ancients  of  the  order 
had  a  saying,  “quod  ex  quo  litterati 
fuerunt  inter  eos,  ordo  non  fecerat 
profectum  suum.”  (Ib.  389.)  One 
who  had  been  forty  years  a  precep- 


Chap.  I. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


43 


The  mystery  in  which  the  proceedings  of  the  order 
were  shrouded  gave  occasion  for  much  popular  suspicion 
against  it.y  The  receptions  and  the  chapters  were  held 
with  closed  doors,  sometimes  by  night  or  in  the  faint 
light  of  dawn,2  and  the  members  were  forbidden  to  talk 
even  among  themselves  of  what  took  place  on  these 
occasions.4  A  witness  who  did  not  belong  to  the  order 
was  told  by  one  of  the  high  officers  that,  at  the  proceed¬ 
ings  of  the  chapters,  there  was  one  point  so  wonderful 
and  so  secret  that,  if  the  king  of  France  himself  were  by 
chance  to  witness  it,  those  who  held  the  chapter  would 
be  compelled  to  secure  his  silence  by  putting  him  to 
death.  The  same  officer  had  also  declared  that,  in 
addition  to  the  ordinary  book  of  statutes,  the  Templars 
had  another,  so  mysterious  that  he  would  not  for  the 
whole  world  allow  it  to  be  seen  ;b  and  other  witnesses 
deposed  that  the  members  in  general  were  not  allowed 
to  see  the  rules  or  the  statutes,  except  by  special  per¬ 
mission.0  The  suspicion  of  guilty  secrets  was  supported 
by  the  charge  that  the  Templars  were  bound  to  confess 
to  no  one  but  the  chaplains  of  their  own  order.  But  it 


tor,  being  examined  on  his  deathbed, 
admitted  the  ceremony  of  the  denials, 
but  knew  nothing  of  kisses,  except  on 
the  mouth,  of  mutilating  the  canon, 
or  of  the  lay  absolution  lb.  178-9. 

y  E.g.,  Proc.  i.  180,  196-7,  208,  2x9, 
251,  257,  268,  295,  478,  493,  644;  ii. 
440,  451,  etc. 

*  lb.  i.  187,  205,  537;  Matth.  Paris, 
899,  ed.  1641. 

a  Menard,  i.  172,  180;  Regie  et 
Stat.  c.  81  ;  Proc.  i.  246.  Yet  some 
witnesses  say  that  no  such  secrecy  was 
enforced,  or  that  those  who  had  been 
present  on  any  occasion  were  at  liberty 
to  speak  to  each  other,  although  not 
to  others.  (Menard,  172,  181  ;  Proc. 
i.  613  ;  ii.  232,  448.)  One  at  Nismes 
said  at  first  that  he  had  kept  the  secrets, 
but  had  never  been  charged  to  do  so  ; 


next,  “quasi  trepidando,”  that  he  had 
been  so  charged  under  pain  of  excom¬ 
munication  ;  and  immediately  after¬ 
wards,  “  quasi  balbutiendo  et  verba  in¬ 
tricate  proferendo,”  that  he  had  never 
been  charged.  (Menard,  187.)  John 
of  Stoke,  a  chaplain,  suggests  as  points 
for  reform  “quod  haberet  annum  pro- 
bationis,  et  quodpublice  fiat  receptio.” 
(Wilkins,  ii.  330.)  See  the  evidence  of 
Ralph  de  Barton,  ib.  b  Proc.  i.  175. 

c  Ib.  181,  388  ;  ii.  139,  145.  Have- 
mann  says  that  the  French  statutes 
were  drawn  up  as  they  were  needed, 
between  1247  and  1266  ;  that  there  was 
no  reason  why  each  Templar  should 
be  acquainted  with  them,  except  in  so 
far  as  they  related  to  his  own  duties, 
and  that  they  were  for  the  heads  of 
the  order  only.  103-4,  376-7. 


44 


CHARGES  AGAINST 


Book  VIII. 


appears  that,  although  such  an  injunction  was  laid  on 
them,d  it  was  not  strictly  observed,  and  that  an  excep¬ 
tion  was  made  as  to  cases  of  necessity;®  and  if  such 
exceptions  were  allowed,  the  rule  cannot  fairly  be  blamed 
as  unreasonable,  or  as  really  warranting  the  suspicions 
which  were  not  unnaturally  founded  on  it.  Another 
accusation  was,  that  the  master  and  other  lay  officers 
took  it  on  themselves  to  grant  absolution.  As  to  this, 
it  is  clear  from  the  evidence  that  the  only  offences 
for  which  absolution  was  really  given  by  laymen  were 
breaches  of  the  rules  of  the  order ; f  but  the  testimony 
of  some  witnesses  appears  to  show  that  this  distinction 
was  not  always  rightly  apprehended,  and  that  some 
Templars  may  have  shared  in  the  popular  opinion  which 
supposed  it  to  supersede  the  necessity ‘of  absolution  from 
a  priest.8  With  regard  to  the  charge  that  the  priests 
of  the  order,  in  reciting  the  canon  of  the  mass,  omitted 
the  four  words  on  which  the  consecration  of  the  host  was 


supposed  to  depend,  the  greater  part  of  the  witnesses 
declared  that  they  knew  nothing  of  it ;  and  those  who 


d  Proc.  i.  268. 
e  Regie  et  Stat.,  p.  364. 

1  See,  e.  g-.y  Proc.  i.  210,  390-1,  398, 
42 7>  569>  629  ;  ii.  10,  if,  73.  One  wit¬ 
ness  had  heard  that,  before  the  order 
had  its  own  clergy,  the  lay  preceptors 
absolved  the  brethren  by  papal  autho¬ 
rity,  but  says  that  this  had  been 
altered.  (Proc.  ii.  215.)  Thomas 
Tocci,  of  Thoroldeby,  said  that  when 
any  one  asked  forgiveness  in  the  chap¬ 
ter,  inquiry  was  made  whether  it  were 
for  peccatum  or  for  defalta.  If  the 
latter,  penance  was  imposed  by  the 
president ;  if  the  former,  by  a  priest, 
except  in  cases  reserved  for  the  pope. 
He  himself  had  never  believed  that  a 
layman  could  absolve.  (Wilkins,  ii.  385.) 
In  another  examination,  he  says  that 
the  master  absolves  from  greater  sins, 
and  the  priest  from  lesser  (386). 

fc'  Some  say  that  they  had  found 


among  the  simpler  brethren  a  notion 
that,  after  the  lay  absolution,  that  of 
a  priest  was  not  necessary  ;  and  that 
they  had  reasoned  against  this.  (Proc. 
ii.  129,  135.)  In  some  cases,  according 
to  English  witnesses,  the  lay  officer 
gave  remission  of  sins,  “  quantum  in 
me  est,”  and  then  enjoined  a  priest  to 
give  his  absolution,  or  charged  the 
penitent  to  apply  to  a  priest.  (Wilkins, 
ii.  367-8-9,  etc.)  One  says,  “  Quod 
magnus  praeceptor,  miles,  vel  visitator 
possunt  fratres  absolvere  a  septem 
peccatis  mortalibus,  si  petant  miseri- 
cordiam  in  capitulo,  et  poenitentia  eis- 
dem  injungitur  per  dictum  praecep- 
torem  et  conventum,  et  de  his  de  quibus 
absolutus  est  non  oportet  ut  ulterius 
confiteatur  sacerdoti,  nisi  per  praecep- 
torem  remittatur  ad  sacerdotem.”  (Ib. 
372.)  The  witnesses  in  Ireland  deny 
that  the  master  can  absolve.  (Ib.  376-7.) 


Chap.  I. 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


45 


admitted  that  they  had  heard  of  it,  denied  that  they  had 
observed  any  such  omission  in  the  performance  of  the 
office.11  The  practice  of  the  order  as  to  almsgiving  was 
among  the  subjects  of  inquiry;  and  the  result  of  the 
answers  appears  to  be  that,  notwithstanding  the  grand¬ 
master’s  claim  in  behalf  of  his  brethren  as  to  this  point,1 
the  Templars  did  not  enjoy  the  reputation  of  liberality; 
that  they  exercised  hospitality  towards  persons  of  wealth 
and  condition  rather  than  charitable  bounty  to  the  poor  ; 
and  that  in  many  places  their  alms  had  of  late  years 
become  less  than  before.k 

The  charges  that  they  were  enjoined  to  gain  acqui¬ 
sitions  for  the  order  by  wrongful  as  well  as  by  rightful 
means,  appeared  by  the  evidence  to  have  no  other 
foundation  than  vague  reports.1  One  member  deposed 
that  at  his  reception  he  was  told  to  practise  such  arts 
without  scruple,  but  only  against  the  Saracens ; m  and 
others  declared  that  they  had  been  charged  to  avoid  all 
ways  of  unfair  gain.n 

The  circumstance  that  there  was  no  noviciate,  although 
explained  on  the  ground  that  the  members  ought,  im¬ 
mediately  on  their  admission,  to  be  ready  to  proceed  to 
the  holy  war,0  excited  much  suspicion — as  if  the  rites  of 
initiation  were  such  that  no  one  who  had  witnessed  them 


h  Proc.  i.  299,  305,  342,  516,  606, 
645.  A  witness  at  Aigues  Mortes  said 
that  he  knew  nothing  as  to  tampering 
with  the  canon,  but  that  some  Templars 
had  told  him  that  in  communicating 
they  intended  to  receive  “hostiam 
aliam,  non  consecratam  ”  ;  and  one  of 
those  whom  he  named  avows  this  as 
to  himself.  Menard,  202,  211. 

1  See  p.  28.  At  an  earlier  time, 
when  answering  the  proposal  of  union 
with  the  Hospitallars,  he  had  said  that 
the  Templars  gave  alms  to  all  who 
would  receive  it  thrice  a-week ;  that 
they  continually  gave  the  poor  one- 
tenth  cf  all  their  bread  (according  to 


the  direction  of  their  Rule, — c.  15, 
Patrol,  clxvi.),  and  that  every  two  had 
an  allowance  of  meat  which  would 
leave  enough  to  feed  two  poor  men. 
Baluz.  Vitae  Pap.  Aven.  ii.  182. 
k  Proc.  i.  253,  305,  315,  572,  641,  etc. 
1  E.g.,  Ib.  220,  227,  253. 
m  Ib.  ii.  239. 

n  Ib.  i.  373.  One  witness  says  that 
at  the  time  of  entrance  he  had  been 
in  debt,  and  had  given  the  order  all 
that  he  had,  probably  worth  1000  livres 
Tournois ,  but  that  they  did  not  pay 
his  creditors.  Ib.  ii.  239. 

0  Ib.  i.  332,  528,  607  ;  ii.  10,  etc. 


46 


THE  TEMPLARS. 


Book  VIII. 


should  have  an  opportunity  of  leaving  the  order  ; p  and 
terrible  stories  were  told  of  persons  who,  after  having 
gone  through  those  rites,  never  smiled  again. q  It  was 
said  that  one  expressed  his  grief  by  causing  a  signet-ring 
to  be  made  with  an  inscription  which  described  him  as 
lost,  and  that  within  a  year  and  a  half  after  his  recep¬ 
tion  he  pined  away.r  An  English  witness  related  that 
a  Templar  spoke  of  himself  as  having  lost  his  soul  by 
joining  the  brotherhood.15  Another  said  that  his  grand¬ 
father  entered  the  order  in  full  health  and  in  high  spirits,1 
taking  his  hawks  and  dogs  with  him  ;  and  that  three  days 
later  he  was  a  dead  man.u  Another  knight,  who  had 
before  been  rallied  by  his  friends  as  to  the  popular  stories 
of  the  manner  of  reception,  came  out  from  the  ceremony 
pale  and  overwhelmed  with  sorrow  ;  and  on  being  urged 
to  relate  the  details,  as  he  had  promised,  he  sternly  for¬ 
bade  all  questioning  on  the  subject. x  Some  professed  to 
have  forsaken  the  order  on  account  of  the  abominations 
which  were  connected  with  it ;  others  said  that  they  had 
wished  to  leave  it,  but  that  they  and  many  others  were 
kept  in  it  by  fear ;  y  but  these  witnesses  appear  to  have 
been  men  of  low  character,  and  little  entitled  to  belief. 
It  is  indeed  impossible  to  decide  as  to  the  value  of  much 
of  the  evidence.  The  witnesses  make  confessions  to  the 
discredit  of  the  order ;  they  avow  that  they  had  done  this 
from  a  wish  to  save  themselves  at  its  expense,  retract 
their  confessions,  and  yet  afterwards  retract  their  re¬ 
tractations.2  Many  of  them  declare  that  they  had  yielded 


P  Some  were  sworn  to  continue  in  it, 
but  others  were  not.  Ib.  i.  613,  623. 

<J  Ib.  i.  176.  r  Ib.  184. 

*  Wilkins,  ii.  362. 

1  “Vadens  [valens?]  sanus,  et 
hilaris.” 

„  Wilkins,  ii.  360.  There  are  stories 
of  this  kind  in  the  fragment  of  Spanish 
evidence  published  by  Benavides, 
4  Fernando  IV.’  i.  63.6. 


x  Proc.  i.  454.  There  is  a  similar 
story  by  the  same  witness,  a  Fran¬ 
ciscan,  ib.  457-8. 

y  Ib.  200,  216,  258,  316,  379,  387. 

*  See,  e.g.,  John  de  Pollencourt, 
Froc.  i.  369,  378.  Raynouard  exhibits 
some  of  the  contradictions  in  the  evi¬ 
dence  by  printing  them  in  parallel 
columns,  223-8. 


Chap.  I. 


CLEMENT  V.  AND  ENGLAND. 


47 


to  force  or  to  the  fear  of  tortures,  and  that  by  the  same 
means  they  might  have  been  wrought  to  confess  anything, 
however  false  or  monstrous.*  Many  had  been  won  by 
the  blandishments  which  were  practised  on  them,  and  by 
the  hopes  of  royal  favour  which  were  held  out,  to  give 
testimony  agreeable  to  Philip’s  designs  ;  b  and  many — 
especially  in  the  south  of  France — when  they  were 
pressed  with  the  avowals  which  had  been  extracted  from 
the  grand- master  and  others,  declared  that  there  was  no 
truth  in  them.0 

In  other  countries,  also,  inquiries  as  to  the  Templars 
had  been  carried  on,  and  with  results  less  doubtful  than 
in  France. 

With  England,  Clement,  notwithstanding  his  subservi¬ 
ency  to  the  French  king,  had  studied  to  be  on  friendly 
terms.  As  archbishop  of  Bordeaux,  he  had  been  subject 
to  the  English  sovereign.  As  pope,  he  had  released 
Edward  I.  from  his  oath  to  observe  the  charters, d  and 
had  allowed  him  to  levy  ecclesiastical  tenths  throughout 
the  British  islands  for  two  years ;  and  in  consideration 
of  this  he  had  himself  been  permitted  to  extort  large 
sums  from  the  English  church,  notwithstanding  strong 
remonstrances  of  the  parliament.®  He  had  countenanced 
the  attempts  to  subdue  Scotland,  had  suspended  the 
Scottish  bishops  who  were  obnoxious  to  Edward,  and 
had  excommunicated  Robert  Bruce,  who,  after  the 
execution  of  Wallace  in  August  1305,  had  become  the 
champion  of  the  national  freedom/  He  had  suspended 
the  English  primate,  Robert  Winchilsey,  who  had 
offended  Edward  by  acts  which  have  been  in  part 
already  mentioned  ; s  and  by  these  and  other  compliances 

a  Proc.  i.  514,  521 ;  ii.  19,  172,  210  ;  no ;  Pauli,  iv.  167. 

Plavem.  343-4.  b  Raynouard,  45.  e  Rymer,  i.  991-3 ;  Pauli,  1.  c. 

c  Proc.  ii.  441,  444,  447,  455-6.  See  f  Rymer,  i.  987  ;  Pauli,  iv.  171. 
the  Elne  depositions  especially.  *  Vol.  vi.  p.  318  ;  Rymer,  i.  983,  986, 

d  Rymer,  i.  978-9;  Walsingh.  i.  989  ;  Walsingh.  i.  no;  Pauli,  iv.  168. 


43 


THE  TEMPLARS 


Book  VIII. 


he  had  established  a  friendly  understanding,  although  he 
had  declined  the  king’s  request  that  Bishop  Grossetete  of 
Lincoln,  whom  the  court  of  Rome  could  not  but  regard 
as  an  enemy,  should  receive  the  honour  of  canonization.11 
At  the  time  when  the  process  against  the  Templars  was 
begun  in  France,  Edward  II.,  who  had  just  succeeded  to 
the  English  crown,  was  about  to  marry  a  daughter  of  Philip, 
who  wrote  to  bespeak  his  co-operation  against  the  order  : 1 
and  Clement,  by  a  bull  dated  on  the  22nd  of  November 
1307,  after  reciting  the  confessions  which  were  alleged  to 
have  been  made  by  the  master  and  other  members,  desired 
him  to  imprison  the  Templars  of  his  dominions,  and  to 
commit  their  property  to  the  custody  of  independent  per¬ 
sons  until  the  charges  against  them  should  be  investigated. k 

In  compliance  with  these  letters — although  Edward 
had  before  regarded  the  Templars  with  great  favour,  and 
was  still  so  little  inclined  to  believe  the  charges,  that 
even  at  this  time  he  wrote  to  the  kings  of  Spain,  Portugal, 
and  Sicily,  desiring  that  they  would  not  too  readily  take 
part  against  the  order1 — all  the  Templars  in  the  British 
islands  (for  Scotland  was  then  under  the  English  do¬ 
minion)  were  arrested  in  January  1308,  with  the  same 
suddenness  which  had  before  been  used  against  their 
brethren  in  France.m  Councils  of  the  two  provinces  were 
held  at  London  and  at  York  respectively,  and  showed 
themselves  disposed  to  treat  the  accused  with  fairness.11 


Rymer,  i.  1015-16 ;  Pauli,  iv.  188. 
For  Grossetete,  see  vol  vi.  p.  203. 

1  See  Edward’s  answer  in  Rymer, 
ii.  io. 

k  Rymer,  ii.  16.  Cf.  Edward’s  let¬ 
ter,  ib.  65. 

1  Dupuy,  Append.  60,  61  ;  Rymer, 
ii.  19.  The  answer  to  Philip  (Rym.  ii. 
10)  is  written  in  a  tone  of  hesitation, 
and  Bp.  Hefele  refers  to  Benavides, 
Mem.  de  Fernando  IV.  (Madrid, 
i860),  for  two  letters  in  which  Edward 


begs  the  king  of  Portugal  and  the  pope 
to  help  the  Templars  (vi.  379).  He 
expresses  to  the  pope  his  unwillingness 
to  give  credit  to  the  charges,  Dec.  10. 
Rymer,  ii.  20. 

m  Ib.  18,  23 ;  Eulog.  Histor.  iii. 
194.  Dean  Hook  suggests  that  the 
affair  may  have  been  pushed  on  in 
consequence  of  Abp.  Winchilsey’s 
return  from  exile,  iii.  446. 

n  Rymer,  ii.  88,  go,  91,  etc.  The 
York  council  (June  and  July,  i3ii)is 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1307-11. 


IN  ENGLAND. 


49 


The  pope  had  ordered  that  the  witnesses  should  be 
examined  by  torture, — a  novelty  in  English  procedure  ; 
and  the  York  council  ask,  with  visible  repugnance, 
what  should  be  done  if  no  one  capable  of  applying  it 
should  be  found  in  England — whether  torturers  should 
be  brought  from  abroad  ?  to  which  no  other  answer  was 
given  than  that  it  must  not  be  so  applied  as  to  maim 
the  victims  for  life.0 

Forty  knights  were  examined  before  the  bishop  of 
London, p  and  after  these  followed  a  number  of  other 
witnesses,  who  did  not  belong  to  the  order.  The  interro¬ 
gations,  which  were  furnished  by  the  pope,  were  eighty- 
seven  in  number, q  and  to  these  twenty-four  were  after¬ 
wards  added.  The  evidence  (of  which  some  portions 
have  been  quoted  already)  presents  the  same  features 
with  which  we  have  become  familiar  in  that  of  the  French 
Templars.  There  are  stories  of  denying  the  Saviour,  of 
spitting  on  the  cross,  of  obscene  ceremonies  and  abomi¬ 
nable  licenses,1,  as  connected  with  the  reception.  One 
witness,  Stephen  of  Staplebridge,  who  is  described  as 
a  fugitive  and  apostate  from  the  order,  and  professed 
much  contrition  for  his  sins,  states  that  there  were  two 
ceremonies  of  reception — a  good  and  a  bad — and  that 
he  himself  had  gone  through  both  ; s  he  believed  that  any 


in  Wilkins,  ii.  395,  seqq.  Cf.  Hemingb. 
ii.  286,  seqq.  There  are  many  docu¬ 
ments  relating  to  the  safe  keeping 
of  the  Templars  in  Ryrner,  ii.  90,  91, 
100,  105,  etc. 

0  Hemingb.  ii.  287;  Hallam,  ii.  286; 
Pauli,  iv.  232.  This  is  not  within  the 
scope  of  Mr.  Jardine’s  ‘Reading  on 
the  Use  of  Torture  in  the  Criminal 
Law  of  England’  (Lond.,  1837),  where 
it  is  shown  (pp.  8-9),  that  torture  is 
against  Art.  29  of  Magna  Charta,  and 
against  other  English  laws.  It  does 
not  appear  whether  the  torture  was 
actually  used  in  the  case  before  us. 
The  pope  rebuked  Edward  for  his 

VOL.  VII. 


lenity  towards  the  Templars.  Ray- 
nouard,  132  ;  Pauli,  iv.  233. 

P  Wilkins,  ii.  334. 

1  lb.  331-2.  r  lb.  384. 

8  lb.  383.  Compare  John  of  Stoke, 
ib.  387-8.  It  will  be  seen  that  this  is 
inconsistent  with  much  of  the  other 
evidence.  The  evidence  of  Thomas 
Tocci  (386-7)  is  also  remarkable.  He 
says,  among  other  things,  that  shortly 
after  his  entrance  into  the  order,  a 
member  of  it  said  to  him,  “  Si  sederes 
super  campanile  S.  Pauli  Londoniensis, 
non  posses  videre  majora  infortunia 
quam  tibi  contingent  antequam  mori- 
aris.  ” 


4 


50 


THE  TEMPLARS  IN  ENGLAND, 


B,  ok  VI![. 


who  should  refuse  compliance  with  the  objectionable  rites 
were  put  to  death  in  foreign  countries,  but  was  not  aware 
of  any  such  case  in  England.1  There  is  much  about 
idols,  brazen  heads  with  either  one  face  or  two,11  a  cat,x 
a  calf,y  a  black  monster  with  glowing  eyes  ; 2  and  one 
witness,  a  Franciscan  friar,  had  been  told  by  a  “  veteran,” 
who  had  left  the  order,  that  there  were  four  principal 
idols  in  England.11  Yet  on  this  point  there  was  no  clear 
testimony  from  personal  knowledge,  and  it  was  com¬ 
monly  stated  that,  with  very  few  exceptions,  the  faith 
of  the  members  was  sound.b  There  were  tales  of  the 
mystery  in  which  the  order  delighted,0  and  of  the  terrible 
effects  which  an  initiation  into  its  secrets  had  in  some 
cases  produced.01 

The  councils  both  of  London  and  of  York  were  n- 
clined  to  greater  lenity  than  the  French  tribunals.  Many 
of  the  accused  were  persuaded  to  forswear  ail  heresy,  on 
which  they  were  absolved,  and  placed  in  monasteries  for 
penance  until  the  expected  general  council  should  decide 
the  fate  of  the  order.e  But  for  those  who  persisted 
in  a  denial  of  guilt,  severer  measures  were  used.  Thus 
one  was  shut  up  for  the  time  “in  a  most  vile  prison, 
being  bound  with  double  irons;”*  and  the  grand  pre¬ 
ceptor,  William  de  la  More,  was  reserved  for  the  pope's 
judgment,  and  died  in  prison.8 

In  Scotland,11  only  two  knights — both  of  English  birth 
— were  arrested.  They  admitted  that  the  great  oibcers 


1  Wilkins,  ii.  384.  u  lb.  358. 
x  lb.  359.  y  lb.  358-9.  *  lb.  362. 

a  lb.  363.  b  lb.  358. 
c  lb.  359.  A  Templar  is  reported 
to  have  said  to  a  priest  that  there  were 
three  articles  which  would  never  be 
known,  except  to  God,  the  devil,  and 
one  member  of  the  order.  Ib.  361. 
a  See  p.  46  ;  also  Wilkins,  ii.  359. 
e  Ib.  314,  390-2  ;  Letters  from  the 
NorthernRegisters(Chron.  and  Mem.), 


208,  269  ;  Hemingb.  ii.  292;  Ad.  Mu- 
rimuth,  14.  See  Pauli,  iv.  232-3. 
f  Wilkins,  ii.  393. 

6  After  having  been  confined  111  Can¬ 
terbury  castle,  he  was  made  over  to 
Antony  Beck,  bishop  of  Durham  and 
patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  for  custody, 
and  he  died  in  the  Tower  of  London, 
1313.  Rymer,  ii.  46,  198. 

h  The  commission  for  Scotland  and 
Ireland  is  in  Rymer,  ii.  93-4. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1307-n.  SCOTLAND,  IRELAND,  ITALY.  5  [ 

were  accustomed  to  give  absolution  as  if  by  authority 
from  God,  St.  Peter,  and  the  pope.  One  of  them  said 
that  at  his  reception  he  was  charged  to  accept  no  service 
from  a  woman — not  so  much  as  water  to  wash  his  hands.' 
Many  witnesses  not  belonging  to  the  order  were  ex¬ 
amined,  but  nothing  beyond  mere  suspicions  could  be 
drawn  out  from  them.  The  abbot  of  Dunfermline  stated 
that  he  had  never  heard  of  any  reception  as  having  taken 
place  in  Scotland. k 

In  Ireland,  after  some  Templars  had  been  examined 
without  admitting  any  of  the  charges,  the  evidence  came 
chiefly  from  Franciscans,  who  were  bitter  enemies  of  the 
order.1  One  who  had  been  a  servitor  in  it  had  heard 
that  many  Templars  had  been  put  into  sacks  and  thrown 
into  the  sea;  but  when  questioned  as  to  the  story 
that  one  was  lost  at  every  general  chapter,  he  said  that 
he  had  himself  disproved  it  by  counting  them  as  they 
vent  in  and  as  they  came  out.m  Another  deposed  that 
at  the  elevation  of  the  host  Templars  had  been  known 
to  look  down  to  the  ground;  and  that  from  this  and 
other  circumstances  he  believed  them  all  and  each  to  be 
conscious  of  some  guilty  secret.11 

In  Italy,  although  the  usual  avowals  to  the  discredit  of 
the  order  were  extorted  in  the  papal  states 
and  in  the  southern  kingdom,  which  was  A‘  ‘  I3Ia 
under  the  influence  of  France,  the  result  of  inquiries 
•elsewhere  was  favourable.  The  archbishop  of  Ravenna, 
as  inquisitor  for  Tuscany  and  northern  Italy,  held  two 
synods  for  the  consideration  of  the  subject,  where  it  was 
resolved  that  the  guilty  members  should  be  punished 
and  that  the  innocent  should  be  absolved ;  that  those 
who  retracted  confessions  made  under  torture  should  be 
reckoned  as  innocent ;  and  that,  as  the  innocent  out- 


i  Wilkins,  ii.  381. 
h  lb.  382. 


1  lb.  373-8. 
m  lb.  379. 


“  lb. 


52 


THE  TEMPLARS  IN  SPAIN, 


Book  VIII. 


numbered  the  guilty,  the  order  should  be  allowed  to  re¬ 
tain  its  property.0 

In  the  Spanish  kingdoms  the  affair  took  a  peculiar 
course.  The  Templars  of  Castile  and  Aragon,  warned 
by  the  sudden  arrest  of  their  brethren  in  France,  shut 
themselves  up  in  their  castles,  and  offered  to  do  battle 
for  the  defence  of  the  order.p  Some  of  their  fortresses 
were  reduced  by  the  king  of  Aragon,  and  were  made 
over  by  him  to  papal  commissioners.  The  case  of  the 
Aragonese  Templars  was  considered  by  synods  at  Tarra¬ 
gona  in  1310  and  1312 — between  which  times  some  of 
them  had  been  put  to  torture,  but  without  making  any 
confession.  At  the  second  synod  they  were  declared  to 
be  innocent  of  heresy ;  but  as  the  pope  had  already  dis¬ 
solved  the  order,  it  was  decreed  that,  until  he  should 
determine  further,  they  should  be  allowed  to  hold  houses 
and  income  within  the  dioceses  where  their  property  lay, 
and  to  live  under  the  inspection  of  the  bishops.'1 

For  the  kingdoms  of  Castile  and  Leon,  the  inquiry  was 
carried  on  by  a  commission  which  sat  at  Medina  del 
Campo,  and  afterwards  by  a  synod  at  Salamanca,  in  1310. 
The  prelates  who  were  present  expressed  great  satis¬ 
faction  that  no  crime  had  been  established  against  the 
Templars,  but  referred  the  decision  of  the  case  to  the 
pope,  on  the  ground  that  an  acquittal  by  him  would 
carry  greater  weight  than  one  pronounced  by  an  inferior 
tribunal ;  but  eventually  the  Templars  of  Castile  were 
involved  in  the  general  fate  of  the  order/ 

In  Germany,  the  Templars  of  Mentz,  Toul,  and  Verdun 
denied  all  the  charges.s  The  case  of  the  order  was 
brought  before  a  council  at  Mentz  in  1410,  when,  to  the 

0  Mansi,  xxv.  293-6;  Milm.  v.  194-5  ;  r  Benavides  Mem.  de  Fernando  IV. 
Hefele,  vi.  387,  448.  i.  630,  seqq.  There  is  some  evidence, 

p  Mariana,  xv.  10  (t.  i.  883,  ed.  pp.  635-7.  Cf.  Hefele,  vl  420. 

1780) ;  Mansi,  xxv.  297.  »  Dupuy,  213. 

1  lb.  515 ;  Hefele,  vi.  421-a. 


CHAr.  I.  a.d.  1307-12.  GERMANY,  AND  THE  EAST. 


53 


astonishment  of  the  assembled  prelates,  Hugh,  count 
of  the  Rhine  and  waldgrave,*  the  provincial  head  of  the 
Templars,  appeared  with  twenty  companions,  in  the  full 
armour  and  habit  of  the  Temple.  On  being  asked  by 
the  archbishop  of  Mentz,  Peter  Aichspalter,  to  explain 
their  business,  the  count  said  that  he  and  his  brethren 
protested  against  the  charges  of  “enormous  and  more 
than  heathen  crimes,”  which  had  been  brought  against 
them;  that  the  innocence  of  those  who  had  been  burnt 
elsewhere  had  been  proved  by  a  miracle,  their  white 
cloaks  and  red  crosses  having  been  unconsumed  by  the 
fire ;  and  he  appealed  to  a  future  pope  and  to  a  general 
council.  The  archbishop  answered  that  he  would  refer 
the  matter  to  the  pope  ;  and  in  the  following  year  a 
second  council  was  held,  by  which  it  was  declared  that 
the  Templars  were  innocent.11  Yet  at  Mentz  the  pro¬ 
perty  of  the  order  was  confiscated ;  and  in  other  parts 
of  Germany  there  were  serious  commotions,  and  some 
of  its  members  perished  at  the  stake.* 

The  pope  wrote  to  the  king  of  Cyprus  and  to  the  Latin 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  urging  inquiry  into  the  case 
of  the  Templars,  and  enjoining  the  use  of  torture.  In 
reply,  Amaury  of  Cyprus  reported  that  he  had  not  been 
able  to  arrest  the  knights,  as  they  had  been  warned 
against  a  surprise ;  but  that  they  had  waited  on  him, 
asserting  their  innocence,  and  offering  to  submit  to  the 
papal  judgment.5' 

Within  a  few  months  after  the  beginning  of  Philip’s  pro¬ 
ceedings  against  the  Templars,  the  empire  had  been  left 
without  a  head  by  the  death  of  Albert  of  Austria,  who, 
while  on  his  way  to  suppress  an  insurrection  of  the  Swiss,2 


4  “  Comes  silvestris  et  Rheni.” 
u  Mansi,  xxv.  298-9.  The  council 
of  1310  passed  a  canon  against  Temp¬ 
lars  and  Hospitallers  for  their  defiance 
of  ecclesiastical  sentences.  Ib  316. 


x  Wilcke,  ii.  41. 

y  Dupuy,  192-5  ;  Baluz.  Vitae  Pap. 
Aven.  ii.  104. 

z  This  expedition  has  been  com¬ 
monly  connected  with  the  story  of 


Book  VIII 


54  VACANCY  OF 

was  murdered  by  his  nephew  John,  within  sight  of  the 

May  r  i^oS  cast^e  HaPsburg>  the  original  seat  of  their 
J  family.1  His  eldest  son,  Frederick,  became 
a  candidate  for  the  vacant  dignity,  but  found  that  his 
hope  of  gaining  the  electors  was  destroyed  by  their  re¬ 
membrance  of  Albert’s  harshness,  and  of  the  policy  by 
which  he  had  strengthened  the  crown. b  Philip  now 
conceived  the  scheme  of  gaining  the  empire  for  a 
member  of  his  own  family — which,  in  addition  to  France 
and  Navarre,  already  possessed  the  thrones  of  Naples 


and  Hungary,  and  through 
Rome  swayed  the  affairs  of 

William  Tell,  which  appears  to  have 
vanished  at  the  touch  of  modern  criti¬ 
cism.  See  ‘Edinb.  Rev.’,  Jan.  1869, 
Art.  v. 

*  W.  Nang,  contin.  62  ;  Ptol.  Luc. 
xxiv.  37;  Ferret.  Vicent.  1048-50; 
Mart.  Polon.  cont.  in  Eccard.  i.  1435; 
Bohmer,  Reg.  251-2.  Albert  had  re¬ 
fused  to  give  John,  who  was  only  nine¬ 
teen  years  old,  possession  of  his  father’s 
territories,  on  account  of  his  youth, 
and  John  was  induced  to  commit  his 
crime  by  the  fear  of  being  utterly  dis¬ 
inherited.  He  and  all  his  accomplices 
were  outlawed  by  Henry  VII.  (Pertz, 
Leges,  ii.  497),  and  all  were,  with  their 
connexions — nearly  1,000  in  number — 
either  put  to  death  or  driven  to  end 
their  days  in  obscurity  and  misery. 
(Joh.  Vitodur.  in  Eccard,  i.  1770.) 
One  of  them,  Walter  of  Eschbach, 
lived  thirty-five  years  as  a  shepherd 
in  Wiirtemberg.  (Mailath,  i.  96.)  John 
himself  sought  absolution  from  the 
pope,  who  granted  it,  but  made  him 
over  to  the  new  emperor,  by  whom  he 
was  consigned  to  a  convent  near  Pisa. 
There  is,  however,  some  doubt  as  to 
the  circumstances  of  his  last  days. 

See  Joh.  Victor,  in  Bohmer.  i.  372  ; 
Ferret.  Vicent.  1093;  Matth.  Neoburg, 
i  1  Urstis.  ii.  114-15  ;  Mailath,  i.  92-7  : 

F  .rthold,  i.  152-3;  Coxe,  i.  44.)  Al- 


agents  at  Florence  and  at 
central  Italy;0  and  (as  we 

bert’s  daughter  Agnes,  the  widowed 
queen  of  Hungary,  and  her  step¬ 
mother,  the  empress  Elizabeth,  built 
and  endowed  a  Franciscan  convent  for 
men  and  one  for  women  at  Konigsfel- 
den,  near  the  scene  of  the  murder, 
with  the  forfeited  property  of  those 
who  had  been  concerned  in  it.  (Joh. 
Victor.  357  ;  Ptol.  Luc.  xxiv.  37 ;  M. 
Neoburg.  105.)  The  spirit  of  Agnes 
was  shown  by  her  exclamation  on 
seeing  sixty-three  of  the  supposed 
criminals  led  out  to  execution—  “  Now 
I  bathe  in  May  dew !  ”  (a  phrase 
borrowed  from  St.  Elizabeth  of  Hun¬ 
gary)  ;  and  it  is  said  that  the  union  of 
this  vindictiveness  with  the  profession 
and  practice  of  a  strictly  ascetic  reli¬ 
gion  drew  on  her  the  reproach  of  an 
aged  hermit, — “  Lady,  God  is  not 
served  by  shedding  innocent  blood,, 
and  by  building  convents  from  the 
plunder  of  families,  but  by  compassion 
and  forgiveness  of  injuries !  ”  J.  v. 
M idler,  Gesch.  der  Schweiz,  i.  24-5  ; 
Coxe,  i.  98. 

b  Schmidt,  iv.  464  ;  Coxe,  i.  99.  A 
Mentz  annalist  (a.d.  1308,  in  Pertz, 
xvii.)  says  of  Albert,  “  De  cujus  morte 
nec  planctus  nec  dolor  habitus,  pro  eo 
quod  clerum  odivit,  nec  in  eo  virtus 
vel  justitia  inventa  est  aliqualis.” 

c  G.  Vill.  viii.  101 ;  Schmidt,  iv.  484. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1308. 


THE  EMPIRE. 


55 


have  seen)d  he  lost  no  time  in  visiting  Clement  at 
Poitiers,  with  a  view  to  secure  the  pope’s  interest  for  his 
brother,  Charles  of  Valois.  It  has,  indeed,  been  sup¬ 
posed  by  some  writers  that  this  interest  was  the  object 
of  the  secret  article  which  Philip  was  said  to  have  ex¬ 
acted  from  Clement  before  his  election.6  But  the  pope 
had  reason  to  dread  the  vast  aggrandisement  of  French 
influence  which  was  designed ;  and  although,  in  com¬ 
pliance  with  Philip’s  wishes,  he  wrote  in  favour  of  Charles 
to  the  electors,  he  at  the  same  time  took  measures  under¬ 
hand  to  defeat  the  king’s  policy.1  In  consideration  of 
his  apparent  subserviency,  not  only  as  to  the  Templars 
but  as  to  the  empire,  he  was  allowed  to  leave  Poitiers, 
and  Philip  was  about  to  visit  him  at  Avignon,  in  order 
to  press  his  suit  with  greater  advantage  at  the  head  of 
6,000  cavalry.  But  Clement,  having  been  informed  of 
this  design  by  a  member  of  the  king’s  council,  employed 
Cardinal  Nicolas  of  Prato  (who  had  been  alienated  from 
Philip  by  his  bitterness  against  the  memory  of  Boniface) 
to  urge  the  electors  that  they  should  choose  speedily, 
and  to  recommend  to  them,  as  the  fittest  candidate, 
Duke  Henry  of  Luxemburg,  who  had  lately  visited  the 
papal  court. g  The  important  see  of  Mentz  was  at  this 
time  occupied  by  Peter  of  Achtzpalth  (Aichspalt  or  Aspelt), 
who  having  been  sent  to  solicit  it  for  Henry’s  brother 
Baldwin,  and  having  recommended  himself  to  the  pope  by 

his  medical  skill,1  had  himself  been  promoted 
r  ,  r  _  1  .  a.d.  1306. 

from  the  see  of  Basel  to  the  German  primacy, 


d  p.  24. 

e  G.  Vill.  viii.  101 ;  Martin,  iv.  482. 
f  D.  Compagni  in  Murat,  ix.  524; 
Antonin,  iii.  274-5.  There  is  a  letter 
from  a  cardinal,  recommending  Charles 
to  the  archbishop  of  Cologne,  and  dated 
at  Poitiers,  July  1308,  in  Baluz.  Vit. 
Pap.  Aven.  ii.  119. 

s  G.  Vill.  viii.  101.  Bishop  Hefele 
seems  to  throw  doubt  on  this  story. 


except  in  so  far  that  the  pope  was  not 
zealous  for  the  French  interest  (vi. 
383-4).  For  the  parties  among  the 
electors,  see  ib.  p.  23. 

h  See  for  the  name,  Hefele,  vi.  383. 

*  He  had  formerly  been  physician 
to  Rudolf  of  Hapsburg,  but  had  since 
quarrelled  with  the  Austrian  family. 
Herzog,  art.  Aichspalt. 


HENRY  VII.  EMPEROR. 


Rook  VIII. 


56 


for  which  Baldwin  was  considered  to  be  too  young ; k 
and  within  two  years  he  had  been  able  to  console  Bald¬ 
win  by  procuring  for  him  the  archbishoprick  of  Treves.1 
Through  the  exertions  of  Peter  Aichspalter,  aided  by 
Baldwin,  it  was  now  contrived  that  the  election  should 
^  fall  on  Henry — a  petty  prince  who  had  not 
at  first  been  thought  of  as  a  candidate,  but 
who  had  been  distinguished  by  the  justice  and  the  vigour  of 
his  administration  within  his  own  small  territory,  and  was 
renowned  as  the  most  accomplished  knight  in  Europe.111 
The  archbishop  of  Mentz  and  the  other  electors  took,  as 
was  usual,  the  opportunity  to  secure  large  privileges  or 
other  advantages  for  themselves  and  their  successors 
and  the  pope,  in  ratifying  the  election,  exacted  from 
Henry  an  engagement  that  he  would  confirm  the  grants 
of  former  emperors  to  the  church,  that  he  would  extermi¬ 
nate  heresies  and  heretics,  that  he  would  never  intermarry 
or  ally  himself  with  Saracens,  heathens,  or  schismatics, 
and  that  he  would  secure  to  the  Roman  church  the  lands 
which  had  been  mentioned  in  former  compacts.0 

Philip — whether  or  not  he  knew  or  suspected  that  the 
pope’s  duplicity  had  been  the  cause  of  his  failure  as  to  the 
empire, — was  rendered  eager  to  console  himself  for  the 
disappointment  by  pursuing  his  suit  against  the  memory 
of  Boniface ;  and,  although  it  had  been  intended  that  the 


k  Trithem.  Chron.  Hirsaug.  a.d. 
1305,  I3°7  :  Barthold,  i.  290  ;  Herzog, 
1.  c. 

1  When  elected  to  Treves,  Baldwin 
was  only  twenty-two.  He  held  the  see 
forty-six  years,  during  which  he  played 
an  important  part  in  ecclesiastical  and 
political  affairs.  See  Gesta  Trevir.  in 
Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  iv.  377 ;  or  Baluz. 
Miscell.  i.  311,  seqq. 

m  “Operibus  quam  opibus  memora- 
bilioribus,”  says  one  of  Clement’s  bio¬ 
graphers.  (Baluz.  i.  86.)  Cf.  Gesta 
Balduini,  in  Martene,  Coll.  Ampl.  iv. 


387  :  Albert.  Mussat.  in  Murat,  x.  125, 
209  :  Olensl.  22-6  :  Barthold,  i.  285  ; 
Bohmer,  Reg.  252-7.  For  the  family, 
see  Barth,  i.  277. 

n  Schmidt,  iv.  486-7.  See  Bohmer, 
376. 

0  Pertz,  Leges,  ii.  494  :  Rayn.  1310. 
3-7  ;  Clementin.  1.  ii.  tit.  9  ;  Ptol.  Luc. 
34.  For  documents  connected  with  the 
election,  see  Olensl  Urkunden,  vi.-x.  ; 
Pertz,  Leges,  ii.  490,  seqq.  ;  Baluz.  ii. 
265,  seqq.,  272:  for  *the  coronation, 
Rayn.  1309.  9. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1308-10.  PROSECUTION  OF  BONIFACE. 


57 


matter  should  be  reserved  for  the  general  council,  which 
had  been  summoned  to  meet  in  October  1310,  Clement 
was  urged  to  a  more  speedy  trial.?  He  announced  an 
intention  of  hearing  the  case  in  Lent  1310,  and  sum¬ 
moned  Philip  and  his  sons,  with  Nogaret  and  Plasian,  to 
appear  as  accusers.*1  The  king  and  the  princes,  how¬ 
ever,  declined  to  undertake  that  character  in  a  question 
of  heresy  ;r  and  thus  the  task  was  thrown  on  Plasian  and 
Nogaret,  who  had  staked  their  all  on  the  process. 

Witnesses  were  on  their  way  from  Italy,  under  Reginald 
of  Supino,  who  had  been  concerned  in  the  attack  on  the 
palace  of  Anagni,  when,  within  three  leagues  of  Avignon, 
they  were  assailed  by  some  of  Boniface’s  partisans,  who 
had  been  lying  in  wait  for  their  arrival.  Some  of  the 
Italians  were  killed;  the  rest  were  scattered,  April  25, 
and  returned  across  the  Alps ;  and  their  I3°9- 
leader  hints,  in  a  protest  which  he  made  at  Nismes,  that 
the  scheme  for  thus  getting  rid  of  their  evidence  had  not 
been  unknown  to  pope  Clement.s  The  power  and  wealth 
of  Boniface’s  family  had  provided  him  with  able  advo¬ 
cates,  when,  on  the  16th  of  March,  1310,  the  question 
came  before  the  pope  in  his  consistory.1  The  French 
king’s  civilians  were  confronted  by  men  learned  in  the 
ecclesiastical  law,  among  whom  the  most  conspicuous 
was  Baldred  Bisset,  a  canon  of  Glasgow,11  whose  name 
has  already  come  before  us  in  connexion  with  the  ques¬ 
tion  as  to  the  Scottish  crown.x  By  each  party  an  attempt 
was  made  to  deprive  its  opponents  of  a  standing  in  the 
court.  On  the  one  side,  it  was  said  that  a  man  who  was 


p  See  Letters  in  Dupuy,  290,  292, 
296,  etc. 

lb.  36.  There  is  a  story  that 
Clement  destroyed  a  bull  which  Boni¬ 
face’s  party  had  drawn  up  with  the  in¬ 
tention  of  getting  the  pope  to  declare 
his  predecessor  blameless.  W.  Nang, 
cont.  63. 


r  Dupuy,  300-2. 

8  lb.  288-90.  See  Milm.  v.  206. 
The  pope  had  beforehand  decreed  the 
penalty  of  anathema  against  any  who 
should  molest  witnesses.  Rayn.  1310. 
18. 

1  Dupuy,  367,  seqq.  u  lb.  370. 

*  Vol.  vi.  p.  333. 


58 


PROCESS  AGAINST 


Book  VIII. 


dead,  and  who  was  charged  with  heresy,  was  not  entitled 
to  counsel : y  on  the  other,  that  a  dead  man  ought  not  to 
be  brought  to  trial,  since  he  had  been  cited  before  a 
higher  tribunal ;  that  a  pope  could  not  be  judged  by  any 
man — not  even  bv  his  own  successor,  forasmuch  as  an 
equal  has  no  power  over  an  equal ;  or,  at  least,  that  he 
could  not  be  judged  by  any  authority  less  than  a  general 
council.2  To  this  it  was  rejoined  that  Boniface,  being 
dead,  was  no  longer  pope  ;  that  the  pope  represented  the 
whole  church,  so  as  to  render  a  general  council  super¬ 
fluous  ;a  while  Clement  himself  disclaimed  the  right  to  try 
his  predecessor.  Nogaret  objected  to  some  of  the  cardi¬ 
nals,  as  unfit  to  be  judges  on  account  of  their  partiality  ;b 
while  the  opposite  party  asserted  that  Nogaret  himself 
ought  not  to  be  heard  on  account  of  his  notorious  enmity 
against  Boniface,  of  his  acts  against  that  pope,  and  of 
the  excommunication  which  he  had  incurred.0  Against 
Plasian,  too,  disqualifying  circumstances  were  alleged. d 
Nogaret  and  his  advocate,  Bertrand  of  Roccanegata,  re¬ 
plied  that  he  had  not  incurred  excommunication ;  that, 
since  he  had  spoken  with  Boniface  before  the  pope’s 
death,  he  could  not  be  in  an  excommunicate  state ;  but 
the  pope  said  that,  although  this  opinion  was  held  by 
some  lawyers,  it  could  not  be  admitted.6  Both  Plasian 
and  Nogaret  asserted  those  doctrines  of  royal,  as  opposed 
to  ecclesiastical,  power  which  were  characteristic  of  their 
class — maintaining,  among  other  things,  the  right  of  the 
sovereign  to  prevent  his  subjects  from  going  out  of  the 
realm,  and  to  take  the  property  of  the  clergy  without  their 
consent.*  The  trial  went  on  for  many  months. 


>  Dupuy,  392-3. 
z  lb.  394-5 ;  Ptol.  Luc.  37. 

*  Dupuy,  413.  b  lb.  388. 

c  lb.  396,  399-402. 
d  lb.  397,  399  ;  Ptol.  Luc.  37. 
c  Dupuy,  409  ;  Baillet,  296.  In  the 


pope  does  not  absolve  an  excommuni¬ 
cate  person  by  intercourse  with  him, 
unless  it  be  declared  that  such  is  his 
intention.  V.  tit.  x.  c.  4. 


f  Dupuy,  317,  322-3,  etc.  ;  Baillet. 

292-8. 


Clementines  it  is  laid  down  that  the 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1310-11.  THE  MEMORY  OF  EONIFACE. 


59 


Evidence,  partly  obtained  by  a  commission  sent  to 
Italy,  partly  given  by  witnesses  who  appeared  in  person, 
was  brought  to  prove  a  long  list  of  accusations. g  It  was 
said  that  Boniface  had  been  a  blasphemer  from  his  youth 
upwards  ;h  that  he  had  not  only  disbelieved  the  chief 
articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  but  had  openly  and  habitu¬ 
ally  scoffed  at  them  p  that  he  had  neglected  the  outward 
duties  of  religion,  and  had  not  confessed  for  thirty 
years  ;k  that  he  had  been  a  gamester  and  a  profligate; 
that  even  in  extreme  old  age  he  had  indulged  in  the 
most  odious  and  abominable  forms  of  dissoluteness  ; 
that  he  had  declared  the  sins  of  the  flesh  to  be  as  much 
a  matter  of  indifference  as  the  act  of  washing  the  hands;1 
that  he  had  been  seen  by  night  performing  pagan  sacri¬ 
fices  and  incantations,  while  voices  ol  demons  had  been 
heard  in  the  air  ;m  that  he  had  worshipped  a  devil  enclosed 
in  a  ring,  and  an  idol  given  to  him  by  a  famous  sorcerer.11 
And,  together  with  these  and  other  such  monstrous  tales, 
w’as  brought  up  the  old  history  of  the  irregularities  con¬ 
nected  with  the  resignation  of  Celestine  and  his  own 
promotion,  and  of  the  cruelties  which  he  was  said  to 
have  exercised  on  his  predecessor,  of  whose  death  he  was 
even  alleged  to  have  been  guilty. 0 

Clement  found  himself  in  a  great  perplexity.  Was  he 
to  give  up  the  reputation  of  Boniface,  and  with  it  the 
credit  of  the  papacy,  the  validity  of  Benedict’s  election 
and  of  his  own  ?  or  was  he  to  tax  Philip  with  falsehood, 
fraud,  and  subornation  of  perjury  in  the  persecution  of  the 
deceased  pope  ?  He  had  already  requested  the  inter¬ 
vention  of  Charles  of  Valois,  whose  hopes  of  the  empire 


s  Dupuy,  526,  seqq.  There  are  seve- 
ra  papers  of  charges,  e.g.,  Dupuy,  305, 
327,  seqq.,  347,  seqq.,  350,  seqq.— this 
last  extending  to  94  articles.  See  He- 
fele’s  remarks  on  the  charges,  vi.  41 1- 
15. 


11  Dupuy,  214-15. 

1  It).  504.  532,  564.  568,  571-5- 

k  lb.  329.  1  lb.  568-9. 

m  Ih.  537. 
n  lb.  355,  536,  538. 

0  lb.  344*5,  528. 


6o 


COMPROMISE  AS  TO  BONIFACE. 


Book  VI IT. 


he  had  lately  frustrated.11  The  kings  of  Castile  and  of 
Aragon  also  remonstrated  with  Philip  against  his  proceed¬ 
ings  ;q  and  at  length  a  compromise  was  agreed  on,  to 
which  Philip  was  the  more  readily  brought  to  consent, 
because  the  new  emperor’s  successes  in  Italy  suggested 
the  fear  that  in  him  the  pope  might  find  another  pro¬ 
tector.1'  In  consideration  of  being  allowed  to  carry  out 
his  designs  against  the  Templars — with  whom  an  attempt 
had  been  made  to  connect  Boniface  by  a  story  that  he 
was  aware  of  their  heresy,  but  had  been  bribed  to  con¬ 
nive  at  its — the  king  agreed  to  forego  the  fulness  of  his 
triumph  over  the  memory  of  his  old  antagonist,  to  leave 
the  judgment  of  Boniface’s  case  to  the  pope  and  cardinals, 
April  27,  and  never  to  question  their  decision.1  A 
I311-  special  bull  was  issued,  by  which  it  was  de¬ 
clared  that  all  Boniface’s  acts  against  the  king  and  king¬ 
dom  of  France  were  annulled  ;  they  were  to  be  erased 
from  the  papal  registers,  and  it  was  forbidden  under 
penalties  that  any  one  should  keep  a  copy  of  them.u  The 
bulls  known  as  Unam  sanctam  and  Rem  non  novarn  only 
were  excepted,  and  these  were  to  be  understood  in  a 
qualified  and  inoffensive  sense.  At  the  same  time  Philip, 
after  a  number  of  cardinals  and  others  had,  at  the  pope’s 
request,  testified  to  the  purity  of  his  zeal,  was  pronounced 
to  be  free  from  all  blame  in  his  proceedings  against  Boni¬ 
face, — to  be  innocent  as  to  the  attack  on  the  pope,  and 
as  to  the  plunder  of  his  treasures  ;x  and  it  was  declared 
that  neither  the  existing  pope  nor  his  successors  should 
molest  the  king  on  account  of  Boniface.  All  who  had 
been  concerned  in  the  contest  with  Boniface  were  forgiven, 
except  the  authors  of  the  outrage  at  Anagni,  and  even  for 
these  some  other  way  of  release  was  to  be  used.y  Nogaret 

r  Dupuy,29o.  Schrockh,  xxxi.  34.  documents,  1311.  22,  seqq. 

r  Sism.  ix.  251.  8  Dupuy,  528-9.  x  Dupuy,  592-602,  603  ;  W.  Nang. 

1  lb.  597;  Antonin.  27.  contin.  64;  Hefele,  vi.  404-8. 

"  Raynaldus  prints  many  erased  *  Dupuy,  604-6.  Nogaret  professed 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1311. 


COUNCIL  OF  VIENNE. 


6l 


himself  was  absolved  ad  cautelarn ,z  on  condition  that  he 
should  perform  pilgrimages  to  Compostella  and  certain 
other  places,  and  that  in  the  next  crusade — an  expedition 
which  was  never  to  be  made — he  should  serve  until  the 
pope  should  authorize  his  return. a 

The  council  of  Vienne,  after  having  been  deferred  from 
time  to  time,  met  on  the  16th  of  October  i3ii.b  The 
number  of  bishops  and  mitred  abbots  is  given  by  one 
writer  as  114  ;  by  others  as  upwards  of  300.°  The  pope, 
in  his  discourse  at  the  opening  of  the  proceedings, 
announced  three  subjects  for  consideration — the  case  of 
the  Templars,  a  crusade,  and  the  reform  of  the  church  ;d 
and,  in  addition  to  these,  the  question  as  to  Boniface 
was  discussed.  Three  advocates — a  civilian,  a  decretalist, 
and  a  theologian— appeared  in  his  behalf,  and  it  is  said 
that  two  Catalan  knights  offered  to  do  battle  for  the 
deceased  pope’s  memory,  but  that  no  one  took  up  their 
challenge.®  The  question  both  as  to  Boniface’s  character 
and  acts,  and  as  to  the  French  king’s  opposition  to  him, 
was  settled  on  the  footing  of  the  compromise  which  has 
been  already  mentioned.1 

On  the  subject  of  reform  in  the  church,  the  bishops 
gave  in  written  statements  of  their  views ;  one  of  these 
memoirs,  by  Durantis,  bishop  ofMende,  displays  so  much 
of  knowledge  and  understanding,  that  it  has  led  some 


that  he  had  gone  to  Anagni  merely  in 
order  to  inform  Boniface  of  the  charges 
against  him,  and  with  a  view  to  obtain¬ 
ing  a  general  council  ;  that  Sciarra 
Colonna  was  there  without  any  concert 
with  him  !  Ib.  528. 

1  This  he  himself  had  requested,  while 
denying  that  he  was  excommunicate. 
Ib.  41 1.  See  p.  5.  a  Dupuy,  601-2. 

b  Mansi  (xxv.  369),  413-14,  423  ;  He- 
fele,  vi.  460. 

c  Mansi  (xxvi.  36)  thinks  114  the 
more  likely  number,  as  being  given  by 
a  contemporary,  the  continuer  of 


William  of  Nangis  (65).  Others  sup¬ 
pose  the  lesser  number  to  be  that  of 
the  French  bishops  only.  Bp.  Hefele 
gives  no  opinion,  vi.  461.. 
d  W.  Nang,  contin.  65. 

6  G.  Villani,  ix.  22.  M.  Martin  says 
that  the  challenge  is  “plus  que  dou- 
teux.”  (iv.  499.)  Some  writers  have 
denied  that  the  affair  of  Boniface  came 
before  the  council  at  all ;  but  see,  for 
the  contrary,  Hefele,  vi.  471. 

f  See  p.  60 ;  Dupuy,  Hist,  des  Tern- 
pliers,  286,  359,  seqq.,  365;  Rayn. 
1312.  15-16  ;  Hefele,  vi.  471-3. 


62 


DURAND US  ON  REFORM. 


Book  VIII. 


writers  to  draw  from  it  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the 
judgment  which  he  formed  as  a  commissioner  in  the 
affair  of  the  Templars.® 

In  this  tract  the  bishop,  writh  a  great  display  of  canoni¬ 
cal  learning,  treats  the  principal  subjects  which  appeared 
to  him  to  require  the  council’s  attention.  He  urges  a 
thorough  reform  of  the  church,  from  the  head  downwards.11 
He  would  have  the  character  of  the  Roman  primacy 
exactly  defined;  that  the  pope  should  not,  in  contra¬ 
diction  to  the  prohibition  of  Gregory  the  Great,  be  styled 
universal  bishop,  and  that  in  various  ways  his  pretensions 
should  be  limited.1  If  the  papacy  should  be  vacant 
more  than  three  months,  the  right  of  election  ought  to 
pass  from  the  cardinals  to  certain  other  representatives  of 
the  church.k  He  proposes  that  a  general  council  should 
be  assembled  once  in  ten  years,  and  that  the  power  of 
making  general  laws  should  belong  to  such  councils 
alone.1  He  urges  the  restoration  of  the  rights  of  the 
episcopate  in  cases  where  they  had  been  invaded  from 
various  quarters,  as  by  the  undue  preference  of  cardinals 
and  members  of  the  pope’s  household  above  the  bishops, 111 
and  by  those  grants  of  dispensations  and  exemptions  to 
monastic  communities  which  had  been  found  ruinous  to 
discipline,  and  had  often  led  even  the  inferior  members 
of  such  communities  to  fancy  themselves  equal  to  bishops 
and  archbishops.11  He  denounces  simony,0  pluralities, p 

k  lb.  1  lb.  c.  27,  p.  2S1. 

ra  P.  ii.  c.  7. 

n  P.  i.  tit.  5  ;  cf.  ii.  28  ;  iii.  33.  The 
bishop  seems  to  have  inherited  some¬ 
thing  of  his  uncle’s  talent  for  etymology 
(see  vol.  vi.  p.  454).  E.g.,  “Agnoscat 

[monachus j  nomen  suum.  Monos  enim 
Greece,  Latine  dicitur  unus ;  achos 
Graece,  Latine  tristis:  unde  monachus, 
id  est  unus  et  tristis,  interpretatur,  ut 
tristis  sedeat  et  officio  suo  vacet.”  P. 
ii.  33,  p.  168.  0  P.  ii.  tit.  20. 

v  lb.  tit.  2,  21. 


6  See  Martin,  iv.  494  ;  Milman,  v. 
222.  The  tract  ‘  De  Modo  Generalis 
Concilii  celebrandi  ’  was  published, 
with  other  pieces  of  a  reforming  ten¬ 
dency,  at  Paris,  1671,  and  has  been 
since  reprinted.  The  editor  makes 
the  mistake  of  ascribing  it  to  the 
author  of  the  ‘Speculum  Juris’  and 
of  the  ‘  Rationale  Divinorum  Officio- 
rum,’  whereas  it  was  really  written  by 
his  nephew,  who  had  succeeded  him 
in  the  see  of  Mende.  See  vol.  vi.  p.  454. 
b  P.  iii.  init.  1  lb.  c.  28,  p.  282. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1311.  COUNCIL  OF  VIENNE. 


63 


the  system  of  granting  monastic  and  other  benefices  to 
cardinals  in  commendam /  the  employment  of  bishops  and 
clergy  in  secular  affairs/  improper  promotions/  the  pride, 
luxury,  and  ignorance  of  the  clergy/  the  want  of  decent 
ornaments  and  vestures  in  churches,11  defects  in  the  per¬ 
formance  of  the  services, x  and  the  profanation  of  Sundays 
and  holy-days  by  giving  them  up  to  unseemly  merriment. y 
He  urges  reform  among  the  bishops  and  clergy,2  and, 
while  maintaining  the  immunity  of  the  clergy  from  secular 
courts/  he  would  guard  against  the  abuse  of  this  privilege 
as  a  protection  to  unworthy  persons.  He  proposes  b  that 
the  decretal  De  clericis  conjugatisf  should  be  revoked,  as 
having  been  made  by  pope  Boniface  without  the  con¬ 
currence  of  a  general  council ;  that  the  western  discipline 
as  to  the  marriage  of  the  clergy  should  be  conformed  to 
that  of  the  eastern  church ; (1  and  he  suggests  the  revival 
of  those  canons  by  which  the  offspring  of  the  amours  of 
the  clergy  were  condemned  to  servitude.6  But  although 
the  question  of  reform  had  been  thus  fully  brought  forward, 
the  council  did  little  to  effect  a  reformation  in  the  points 
which  had  been  indicated  as  faulty. 

The  subject  of  a  crusade  was  discussed,  but  languidly. 
A  grant  of  tenths  for  six  years  was  voted  for  the  purpose ; f 
money  and  jewels  were  contributed,  and  some  knights, 
among  whom  were  Philip  of  France,  Edward  II.  of  England, 
and  Lewis  of  Navarre,  son  of  the  French  king/  took  the 
cross  with  a  view  to  the  expedition.  But  nothing  came 
of  these  acts,  and,  although  attempts  were  made  to  aid 
the  cause  by  a  report  that  the  books  of  the  Mussulmans 
themselves  foretold  a  speedy  extinction  of  the  false 


'■  P.  ii.  c.  21,  p.  ixr. 
r  lb.  t.  1.  8  lb.  t.  18 ;  iii.  27. 

1  P.  iii.  34-6,  39,  seqq.  u  lb.  58. 

*  P.  ii.  t.  19  ;  iii.  52.  *  P.  iii.  53. 

*  lb.  28-29. 

a  P.  ii.  3,  70. 
b  P.  iii.  29. 


c  VI.  Decret.  1.  iii.  tit.  2,  c.  1. 
d  P.  ii.  4,  46.  (This  has  been  already 
quoted,  vol.  v.  p.  381.) 
e  P.  iii.  t.  7. 

f  See  the  pope’s  letters  for  collectio 
in  England,  etc.  Wilkins,  ii.  431 
6  Rayn.  1313.  1-6. 


64 


TEMPLARS  AT  VIENNE. 


Book  VIII. 


religion,11  it  was  more  manifest  than  ever  that  the  period 
of  crusading  enthusiasm  was  over.1  A  chronicler  relates 
that,  when  some  thousands  of  crusaders,  in  obedience  to 
the  pope’s  summons,  made  their  appearance  at  Avignon, 
Clement  absolved  them  from  their  vow,  and  desired  them 
to  return  to  their  homes ;  “  and  thus,”  says  the  writer, 
“  their  labours  and  very  great  expenses  became  like  a 
mockery  and  had  no  effect.”  k 

While  the  council  was  engaged  in  hearing  and  con¬ 
sidering  the  evidence  which  had  been  collected  as  to  the 
case  of  the  Templars,  seven  knights  presented  themselves 
at  one  of  the  sessions ;  and  at  a  later  meeting,  two  more 
appeared  in  like  manner,  offering  to  defend  the  order, 
and  stating  that  from  1500  to  2000  of  their  brethren, 
concealed  at  Lyons  and  in  its  neighbourhood,  were 
ready  to  support  them ;  but  the  pope  in  alarm  ordered 
them  to  be  arrested  and  imprisoned.1  In  February  1312, 
Philip,  impatient  at  the  slowness  of  the  council,  appeared 
before  the  gates  of  Vienne  at  the  head  of  a  large  force, 
declaring  an  intention  to  “  make  the  cause  of  Christ 
triumphant,”  and  demanding  the  abolition  of  the  order, 
on  the  ground  that  it  had  been  convicted  of  heresies  and 
crimes.  A  vast  majority  of  the  council,  however — all 
but  one  Italian  bishop  and  the  archbishops  of  Sens, 
Rouen,  and  Reims,  who  had  been  concerned  in  the 
burnings  of  the  French  Templars — desired  that  the 
accused  should  be  heard ; m  and  Clement  in  perplexity 
caught  at  a  suggestion  which  had  been  made  by  the 
bishop  of  Mende,  that  the  order  should  be  abolished,  not 
on  grounds  of  law,  but  as  a  measure  of  expediency  for 
the  good  of  the  church.  On  the  22nd  of  March,  he 

h  Letter  of  Edward  II.  to  the  king  *  Clem,  in  Raynouard,  177  (Nov. 
of  the  Tartars,  in  Rymer,  ii.  18  (a.d.  ii,  1311). 

1307).  1,1  Ptol.  Luc.  in  Baluz.  Vitae.  Pap. 

*  Baluz.  Vitae  Pap.  Aven.  !  20,  86.  Aven.  i.  43. 

k  Annal.  Altah.  a.d.  1311. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1311. 


TPIE  ORDER  DISSOLVED. 


65 


brought  the  question  before  his  secret  consistory,  when 
no  objection  was  raised  against  the  course  which  he 
proposed;11  for  the  members  of  the  council  had  been 
gradually  subdued  to  the  papal  influence.0  And  at  the 
second  general  session,  on  the  3rd  of  April,  when  king 
Philip  and  three  of  his  sons  were  present,  the  dissolution 
of  the  order  was  proclaimed,  “not,”  as  the  pope  avowed, 
“  by  way  of  definitive  sentence,  forasmuch  as,  according 
to  the  inquisitions  and  processes  which  have  been  held, 
we  cannot  of  right  pass  such  a  sentence,  but  by  the 
way  of  provision  or  apostolical  ordination.” p  Thus  the 
very  instrument  by  which  the  abolition  of  the  order  was 
determined  left  the  question  of  its  guilt  or  innocence 
open,  and  has  left  it  to  perplex  later  ages,  without  even 
such  assistance  towards  the  solution  of  it  as  might  have 
been  derived  from  a  papal  judgment.  A  writer  who 
lived  near  the  time,  and  who  professes  to  have  special 
authority  for  his  statement,  reports  Clement  as  having 
said  that  the  order  could  not  be  destroyed  in  the  way 
of  justice,  but  that  it  must  be  destroyed  by  the  way  of 
expediency,  “  lest  our  dear  son  the  king  of  France  should 
be  offended.”*1 


11  Baluz.  Vit.  Pap.  Aven.  i.  75,  108  ; 
Hefele,  vi.  4 66. 

0  Hemingburgh  complains  that  the 
council  does  not  deserve  to  be  so  styled, 
because  the  pope  carried  everything 
“ex  capite  proprio,”  without  allowing 
discussion,  ii.  293. 

P  Clem,  in  Benavides,  ii.  841 ;  Mansi, 
xxv.  389.  The  continuer  of  William  of 
Nangis  says,  “cum  ordo  ut  ordo  non 
esset  adhuc  convictus”  (65);  cf.  Wal- 
singh.  i.  128  ;  Hemingb.  ii.  293 ;  Rayn. 
1312.  4.  The  bull  of  March  22,  “Vox 
in  excelso  audita  est  ”  (in  Benavides, 
ii.  835,  seqq.),  was  unknown  until  dis¬ 
covered  in  Spain  in  the  end  of  the  18th 
century.  Another  bull,  of  May  2, 
which  relates  chiefly  to  the  property 

VOL.  VII. 


of  the  order,  had  been  wrongly  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  the  act  of  dissolution.  See 
Hefele,  vi.  466-8. 

<1  Albert,  de  Rosate,  Dictionarium 
Juris,  Venet.  1573,  s-  v-  Templar  ii, 
quoted  by  Baluze,  Vitae  Pap.  Aven.  i. 
590.  An  annalist  of  the  time  says, 
“  Quorum  divitiae  et  potentia  in  oculis 
regis  suspectse  magis  praesumuntur 
causasse  ordinis  condemnationem 
quam  malitia  personis  objecta.”  (An- 
nal.  Lubic.  in  Pertz,  xvi.  423.)  St. 
Antoninus  of  Florence  is  also  for  the 
innocence  of  the  order,  (iii.  273.)  See 
in  behalf  of  it  Dean  Milman,  v.  199, 
seqq.,  and  Havemann.  Mr.  Hallam 
is  unable  to  make  up  his  mind.  Suppl. 
Notes,  43-5. 


5 


66 


DISSOLUTION  OF 


Book  VIII. 


The  members  of  the  order  individually  were  left  to  the 
judgment  of  provincial  synods.  For  those  who  should 
seek  and  receive  absolution,  a  maintenance  was  to  be 
provided  ;  and  the  property  of  the  order  in  France  was 
made  over,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Holy  Land,  to  the  Hos¬ 
pitallers/  who  had  achieved  the  conquest  of  Rhodes9 
at  the  very  time  when  the  great  rival  society  was  in  the 
agonies  of  ruin.  Many  members  of  the  dissolved  order 
were  received  into  that  of  the  Hospital/  while  others 
sank  into  humbler  conditions  of  life.u  But  such  was  the 
rapacity  of  Philip,  and  so  effectually  did  he  use  the  means 
of  extortion  which  he  possessed,  that  his  exactions  for  the 
temporary  custody  of  the  property,  and  under  other  pre¬ 
texts,  are  said  to  have  left  the  Hospitallers  for  a  time 
rather  losers  than  gainers  by  the  great  possessions  which 
were  thus  transferred  to  them.x  The  property  of  the 


r  Mansi,  xxv.  391  ;  Dupuy,  449. 
For  Philip’s  consent,  see  lb.  450  ;  for 
the  act  of  the  parliament  of  Paris,  lb. 
462. 

8  See  p.  21,  n.  *. 

1  Murat,  ix.  1017  ;  Wilcke,  ii.  54. 
John  XXII.,  in  1519,  complains  that 
many  ex-Templars  dress  as  laymen, 
and  even  marry.  He  directs  that  they 
shall  join  some  one  of  the  approved 
religious  orders.  (Dupuy,  5x1-13.) 
On  the  other  hand,  one  Peter  Auger, 
being  afraid  that  the  length  of  his  hair 
may  cause  him  to  be  taken  for  a  wan¬ 
dering  Templar,  gets  a  certificate  from 
Edward  II.  that  he  is  a  “  valettus 
camerae  nostrae,”  and  that  he  lets  his 
hair  grow  in  consequence  of  a  vow. 
Rymer,  ii.  128. 

u  “  Projecto  religionis  suae  habitu, 
ministeriis  plebeiis  ignoti  aut  artibus 
illiberal. bus  se  dederunt.”  (Ferret. 
Vicent.  1617.)  We  should  hardly  have 
expected  to  find  such  authority  for  the 
well-known  passage  in  '  The  Rovers  ’ : 
“No  waiter,  but  a  knight  Templar. 
Returning  from  the  crusade,  he  found 


his  order  dissolved,  and  his  person  pro¬ 
scribed.  He  dissembled  his  rank,  ami 
embraced  the  profession  of  a  waiter 
‘  Poetry  of  the  Antijacobin,’  p.  19^. 
ed.  1828. 

x  G.  Vill.  ix.  22  ;  Bern.  Guidonis , 
in  Baluz,  Vit.  Pap.  Aven.  i.  76  ;  W. 
Nang,  contin.  65  ;  Antonin,  iii.  275, 
284.  See  documents  in  Dupuy,  466, 
4 71,  475.  Yet  Clement  could  say  in 
his  bull  of  abolition  that  Philip  did  not 
intend  to  claim  any  part  of  the  Temple 
property,  “  imo  ea  in  regno  suo  totali- 
ter  dimisit,  manum  suam  exinde  totali- 
ter  amovendo.”  (Benavides,  ii.  836.) 
Philip  pretended  that  the  Templars 
had  embezzled  200,000  livres  of  his, 
which  had  been  deposited  in  the  Tem¬ 
ple  ;  and  the  Hospitallers  got  nothing 
until  the  next  reign.  (Boutaric,  *  Philip 
le  Bel,’  ii.  45-6 ;  Hefele,  vi.  469.)  Adam 
of  Murimuth  says  that  Philip  had 
hoped  to  get  one  of  his  sons  made  king 
of  Jerusalem,  with  all  the  endowments 
of  the  Templars  (15).  Clement  also 
made  the  Hospitallers  pay  him  largely. 
(Chron.  Ast.  194  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  99.) 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1311-14.  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  TEMPLE. 


67 


Templars  was  also  bestowed  on  the  knights  of  the  Hos¬ 
pital  in  Germany/  England,2  and  other  countries  ; a  but 
a  different  arrangement  was  made  as  to  Spain,  where  the 
lands  of  the  dissolved  society  were  assigned  to  the  sove¬ 
reigns,  with  a  view  to  the  continual  war  against  the 
Moors;  while  some  smaller  brotherhoods,  devoted  to 
the  prosecution  of  that  war,  grew  out  of  its  ruins,  and 
were  in  part  composed  of.  persons  who  had  been  among 
its  members/ 

The  grand-master,  James  de  Molay,  and  three  other 
great  dignitaries  of  the  order,  had  spent  six  years  and  a 
half  in  prison  when  it  was  at  length  resolved  to  bring 
their  case  to  a  final  decision.  They  were  produced  for 
trial  before  a  commission,  of  which  the  archbishop  of 
Sens  was  president,0  were  condemned  on  their  old  confes¬ 
sions  to  imprisonment  for  life,  and  on  March  nth  1314 
were  brought  forward  in  the  presence  of  two  cardinals 
on  a  platform  which  had  been  erected  in  the  parvis  of 
the  cathedral.  The  cardinal  of  Albano  began  to  read  out 
their  confessions ;  but  suddenly  this  was  interrupted  by 
the  grand-master,  who  denied  and  repudiated  the  avowals 


Clement  had  projected  a  new  crusad¬ 
ing  order  (Dupuy,  416-17)  and  ordered 
that  the  property  of  the  Hospitallers, 
both  old  and  new,  should  be  valued, 
and  that  a  proportionate  number  of 
knights  and  soldiers  should  be  kept  up 
for  the  recovery  of  the  Hcly  Land. 
Rayn.  1312.  8. 

y  Olensl.  74. 

2  See  Rymer,  ii.  150,  153,  167-9,  I7I> 
174,  235-6,  487,  etc.;  Stat.  17  Edw.  II. 
c.  2 ;  Pauli,  iv.  236.  A  cardinal,  who 
had  come  to  England  on  the  business 
of  the  Temple  property,  was  resisted 
by  the  nobles,  who  wished  to  resume 
the  lands  given  by  their  ancestors.  (A. 
Murimuth,  15-16.)  Abp.  Reynolds, 
in  1314,  and  again  in  1320,  rebukes 
the  Hospitallers  for  omitting  to  pay 
duly  the  stipends  of  the  ex-Templars. 


(Wilkins,  ii.  447,  500.)  That  some  of 
these  enjoyed  the  proverbial  longevity 
of  annuitants,  see  Raine,  Lives  of 
Abps.  of  York,  i.  375-6. 

a  Bern.  Guid.  in  Baluz.  i.  76 ;  Wilcke, 
ii.  c.  ro. 

b  See  Dupuy,  375-8,  481-7  ;  Baluz. 
i.  659 ;  Mariana,  1.  xv.  10,  p.  884.  Such 
of  the  Spanish  Templars  as  should  re¬ 
turn  to  obedience  to  the  church  were  to 
be  maintained  in  monasteries  out  of 
the  property  which  had  belonged  to 
the  order.  Bull  of  Clement,  in  Bena¬ 
vides,  ii.  856. 

c  With  other  great  officers  of  the 
order,  they  had  been  originally  re¬ 
served  for  the  pope’s  own  judgment  ; 
but  Clement  afterwards  made  them 
over  to  the  commission.  Hefele,  vi. 
469,  490. 


68 


END  OF  JAMES  DE  MOLAY. 


Book  VIII. 


imputed  to  him,  declaring  himself  to  deserve  death  for 
having,  from  fear  of  torture  and  in  flattery  of  the  king, 
made  a  false  confession. d  The  master  of  Normandy  ad¬ 
hered  to  him  in  his  protest ;  but  the  other  two  brethren, 
worn  out  and  dispirited  by  their  long  imprisonment,  had 
not  the  courage  to  join  them.  The  cardinals,  at  a  loss 
how  to  act  on  this  unexpected  emergency,  adjourned  the 
further  proceedings  until  the  morrow ;  but  Philip,  on  being 
informed  of  the  scene  which  had  taken  place,  at  once, 
and  without  consulting  the  cardinals  or  any  other  clerical 
advisers, e  gave  orders  for  the  execution  of  the  two  who 
had  retracted  their  confessions.  On  the  same  day  De 
Molay  and  the  master  of  Normandy  were  led  forth  to 
death  on  a  little  island  of  the  Seine,  below  the  island  of 
the  City,  to  which  it  has  since  been  joined.  Molay  re¬ 
quested  that  his  hands  might  be  unbound,  and  that  in  his 
last  moment  the  image  of  the  blessed  Virgin  might  be 
held  before  his  eyes ;  and,  as  the  flames  gradually  rose 
around  him  and  his  companion, f  they  firmly  protested 
their  orthodoxy  and  the  innocence  of  their  order.  Philip 
watched  from  the  bank  the  death  of  his  victims,8  whose 
constancy  in  suffering  produced  a  deep  impression  on  the 
people,  so  that  their  ashes  were  carefully  collected  and 
were  treasured  up  as  relics,  while  their  fate  was  gene¬ 
rally  ascribed  to  the  king's  insatiable  rapacity.*1  It  was 
afterwards  currently  believed  that  Molay  at  the  stake 
summoned  the  pope  and  the  king,  as  the  authors  of  his 
death,  to  appear  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ  within 
forty  days  and  a  year  respectively,  and  that  each  of  them 
died  within  the  time  assigned.1  This  story,  however,  does 
not  appear  at  all  in  contemporary  writings ;  and  the 
earliest  versions  of  it  are  without  those  coincidences  of 

d  G.  Villani,  viii.  92  ;  Antonin.  272  ;  6  Antonin.  273. 

W.  Nang,  contin.  67.  h  G.  Vill.  viii.  92  ;  Antonin.  1.  c.  ; 

c  Bern.  Guid.  1.  c.  78  ;  Gir.  de  Fra-  W.  Nang.  cont.  67. 
cheto,  40,  f  G.  Vill.  viL  92.  1  See  Raynouard,  211, 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1245-1309. 


ITALY. 


69 


time  which  would  at  once  give  it  a  prophetic  character, 
and  furnish  a  strong  presumption  of  its  falsehoods  The 
two  knights  who  had  hung  back  from  taking  part  with  the 
master  in  the  parvis  of  Notre-Dame  ended  their  days  in 
prison.1 


In  Italy  the  enmities  of  the  Guelf  and  Ghibelline  fac- 
tions  had  continued  with  unabated  bitterness.  The  head 
of  the  Guelf  party  was  Robert  of  Naples,  who,  on  the 
death  of  his  father,  Charles  II.,  had  been  preferred  by 
the  pope,  on  account  of  his  maturer  age  and  of  his  abili¬ 
ties,  to  the  son  of  his  elder  brother,  Charles  of  Hungary. 
Robert  had  received  the  crown  from  the  pope’s  hands  at 
Avignon,  which  was  within  his  own  territory  of  Provence ; 
and  at  the  same  time  he  had  been  excused  the  payment 
of  a  very  large  debt  which  his  grandfather  and  father 
had  incurred  to  the  Roman  see  on  account  of  their 
Sicilian  wars.m 

Since  the  deposition  of  Frederick  II.  at  the  council 
of  Lyons  in  1245,  no  king  of  the  Romans  had  received 
the  imperial  crown ;  and  Albert  as  well  as  Rudolf  had 
been  severely  rebuked  in  Dante’s  enduring  verse  for  neg¬ 
lecting  Rome  and  Italy."  Yet  while  the  empire  was 
thus  in  a  state  of  abeyance  or  weakness,  the  idea  of  the 
emperor’s  power,  as  an  absolute  monarch  and  supreme 
arbiter,  had  been  raised  higher  than  before  through  the  ex¬ 
ertions  of  the  lawyers,  who  grounded  their  theories  on  the 
old  legislation  of  Justinian,  and  had  never  been  in  greater 
authority  than  at  this  time,0  For  Henry  of  Luxemburg 
his  want  of  territorial  power  and  family  connexions  made 


k  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  254  ;  Milm.  v. 
236;  Murat.  Ann.  VIII.  i.  104.  Fer- 
retti  tells  of  an  unnamed  Templar  who, 
after  having  been  brought  from  Naples 
to  Avignon,  and  placed  before  Clement, 
cited  him  and  Philip  in  a  similar  man¬ 
ner.  1018.  1  Antonin.  1.  c. 


m  Ptol.  Luc.  33-4;  G.  Vill.  viii.  112; 
Rayn.  1309.  t8,  seqq.  ;  Giannone,  iv.  1. 
This  debt  has  been  already  mentioned, 

p.  14. 

n  Purgat.  vi.  97,  seqq.  As  to  Rudolf, 
see  vol.  vi.  p.  293. 

0  Sism.  in.  248-50. 


70 


HENRY  VII. 


Book  VIII. 


it  important  that  he  should  be  invested  with  the  imperial 
crown  ;p  and  in  August  1309  he  announced  to  an  assem¬ 
bly  at  Spires  q  his  intention  of  proceeding  into  Italy  for 
this  purpose.1  At  Lausanne,  where  many  representatives 
of  Italian  princes  and  parties  waited  on  him,  in  October 
1310,  he  renewed  the  oath  which  his  envoys  had  already 
taken  to  the  pope  ; s  and  towards  the  end  of  the  same 
month  he  crossed  the  Mont  Cenis,1  with  a  force  which 
did  not  in  all  exceed  5000  men.  On  the  Epiphany  1311 
— the  second  anniversary  of  his  coronation  at  Aix-la- 
Chapelle — he  was  crowned  at  Milan  as  king  of  Italy  by 
the  archbishop  of  that  city.u  From  a  throne  erected  in 
a  public  place  at  Milan  he  proclaimed  that  he  desired 
to  know  nothing  of  party,  but  everywhere  to  establish 


p  Gregorov.  vi.  16. 

This  visit  to  Spires  was  also  sig¬ 
nalized  by  the  solemn  burial  of  the 
emperors  Adolphus  and  Albert  in  the 
imperial  vault.  Bohmer,  268. 

r  Bohmer,  267.  Various  dates  are, 
however,  given,  and  it  would  seem 
that  there  were  various  announcements. 
The  old  feudal  custom  required  that 
the  Romerzug  should  be  proclaimed  a 
year,  six  months,  and  three  days  be¬ 
forehand.  Olensl.  40. 

8  Pertz,  Leges,  ii.  501  ;  Alb.  Mussat. 
329,  seqq.  *  Bohmer,  283. 

u  Alb.  Mussat,  338,  seqq.  ;  Nic.  Bo- 
trontinus  (bishop  of  Butrinto  in  Epirus, 
probably  a  German  by  birth),  *  Relatio 
de  Itin.  Ital.  Henrici  VII.’,  in  Murat, 
ix.  884-5  >  Pertz,  Leges,  ii.  504,  seqq.  ; 
W.  Nang,  contin.  64;  Gualv.  Flamma, 
c.  350  (Murat,  xi.).  The  crown  used 
was  a  new  one — the  famous  iron  crown 
having  been  pawned  by  the  Torre 
family,  and  so  being  unattainable  until 
it  was  redeemed  in  1319  by  Matthew 
Visconti.  (Gesta  Trevir.  in  Martene, 
Coll.  Ampl.  iv.  393  ;  G.  V ill.  ix.  9  ; 
Muratori  de  Cor.  Ferrea,  cc.  10,  13,  in 
Graevius,  Antiq.  iv.  ;  Fontanini,  c.  5, 
ibid.  ;  Bohmer,  285  ;  Gregorovius,  vi. 


35.)  Monza  put  in  a  claim  to  be  the 
place  of  coronation  ;  but  on  inquiry  it 
appeared  that  coronations  had  been 
performed  there  only  when  the  rebel¬ 
lious  disposition  of  the  Milanese,  or 
some  other  circumstance,  made  it  im¬ 
possible  that  they  should  be  celebrated 
at  Milan.  (Nic.  Botront.  894 ;  Murat. 
Ann.  VIII.  i.  72  ;  Barthold,  *  Der  Ro¬ 
merzug  Heinrichs  v.  Liitzelburg,'  i. 
447 >  453>  Augsburg,  1830.)  Dino  Cam- 
pagni  says  that  Monza  was  the  usual 
place,  but  that  Flenry  “  per  amore  de’ 
Milanesi,  e  per  non  tornare  dietro," 
was  crowned  at  Milan  (525).  Yet  a 
tale  was  spread  that  Henry  was 
crowned  at  Monza  (Ferret.  Vicent. 
1060 ;  Herm.  Corner  in  Eccard,  ii. 
976) ;  and  in  the  history  o  f  Pistoja 
(Murat,  xi.  400)  it  is  said  that  at 
Monza  he  received  a  crown  of  straw, 
“coni’  e  d’  usanza,”  and  afterwards 
the  iron  crown  at  Milan  (cf.  Murat, 
de  Cor.  Ferr.  c.  13).  For  the  Monza 
view  as  to  the  right  of  coronation,  see 
the  Chron.  Modoet.,  in  Murat,  xii. 
1077-8,  X080-1,  where  it  is  said  that 
Henry’s  coronation  at  Milan  was  with¬ 
out  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  Monza 
(1098) ;  see  also  a  note,  ib.  x.  537. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1309-11. 


IN  ITALY. 


71 


peace  and  justice, x  and  to  restore  the  exiled  citizens;  and 
the  people  wept  for  joy  at  the  announcement.5'  The 
factions  of  the  Milanese,  which  were  headed  respectively 
by  the  families  of  Visconti  and  Della  Torre,  were  not, 
however,  to  be  at  once  appeased  ;  and  the  exactions  to 
which  Henry  was  driven  by  his  necessities 

J  #  #  j  f  #  J  2 

produced  a  commotion,  in  consequence  of 
which  he  was  led  to  expel  the  Della  Torres,  who,  from 
having  been  the  first  to  welcome  him,  had  afterwards 
turned  against  him.55  In  faithful  adherence  to  his  declara¬ 
tion  that  he  had  not  come  into  Lombardy  for  the  benefit 
of  a  party,  but  of  all,a  Henry  proceeded  from  city  to  city, 
everywhere  restoring  the  exiles,  whether  Ghibellines  who 
had  been  banished  by  Guelfs,  or  Guelfs  who  had  been 
banished  by  Ghibellines. b  But  some  of  the  Lombard 
cities  rose  against  him  on  account  of  this  impartial  pro¬ 
cedure,0  and  it  was  not  without  much  labour  that  he  was 
able  to  reduce  them ;  while  the  detention  thus  caused  (as 
at  Brescia,  which  did  not  capitulate  until  after  May  19  to 
having  been  reduced  to  extreme  distress  by  Sept.  18. 
a  siege  of  four  months, d)  involved  the  loss  of  opportu¬ 
nities  which  might  have  enabled  him  to  make  himself 
master  of  central  and  southern  Italy.0  At  Genoa,  where 


x  “Cujus  simplex  animus  totaliter 
aspirabat  dare  pacem  mundo,”  says 
Joh.  de  Cermenate,  ap.  Murat,  ix. 
1236  ;  cf.  Ferr.  Vicent.  1059,  who  says 
that  he  was  deceived  by  the  intriguing 
Italians. 

y  Nic.  Botr.  894.  This  writer,  how¬ 
ever,  professes  to  have  foreseen  that 
Henry  would  not  deal  impartially  with 
great  men.  891. 

*  Ptol.  Luc.  xxiv.  40;  Ferr.  Vic. 
1061 ;  Vita  V.  Clem.  V.  ap.  Baluz.  i. 
88;  Chron.  Est.  in  Murat,  xv.  372; 
G.  Vill.  ix  11  ;  Sism.  iii.  256-8  ;  Jordan 
in  Murat.  Antiq.  iv.  1028-9  <  Barthold, 
i.  463,  seqq.  ;  Bohmer,  283.  John  de 
Cermenate  (1242,  seqq.)  is  full  on  this. 


He  says  that  Guy’s  welcome  at  first 
was  reluctant  and  insincere  (1236) ; 
that  he  ironically  proposed  a  sum  of 
100,000  florins  for  Henry,  and  was  held 
to  his  words,  as  if  he  had  spoken  seri¬ 
ously.  1239-40.  a  Nic.  Botr.  889. 

b  lb.  890,  892,  894-5  ;  Vita  V.  Clem, 
in  Baluz.  i.  87  ;  Ptol.  Luc.  38. 
c  Ricobald.  in  Eccard,  i.  1294. 
d  Alb.  Muss.  364,  373,  383,  394; 
Ferr.  Vic.  1.  iii.  ;  Chron.  Ast.  in  Murat, 
ix.  233  ;  Henr.  Hervord.  228  ;  Bohmer, 
290-4. 

e  W.  Nang,  contin.,  64  ;  Chron.  As- 
tense,  233,  seqq.  ;  Barthold,  i.  498, 
seqq.  ;  ii.  3,  seqq  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  36-S. 
When  Brescia  held  out,  Henry  asked 


72 


HENRY  VII. 


Book  VIII. 


I312* 


he  spent  four  months — partly  on  account  of  the  illness 
and  death  of  his  queen  f — he  received  am- 
— bassadors  from  Robert  of  Naples,  proposing 
terms  of  friendship  and  alliance ; B  but  on  pro¬ 
ceeding  southward,  he  found  that  Robert  was 
exerting  all  his  influeuce  against  him,  and  that  the  king’s 
brother,  John,  prince  of  Achaia,  was  in  possession  of 
the  approach  to  Rome  by  the  Ponte  Molle,  and  of  some 
strong  places  within  the  city.h  After  some  negotiation  he 
compelled  John  to  withdraw  from  the  bridge  (although 
May,  7,  the  prince  professed  to  do  so  for  strategical 
I312-  reasons);  and  he  gradually  got  possession  of 
the  Capitol,  the  Colosseum,  the  Pantheon,  and  other 
strongholds  on  the  left  bank  of  the  river.1  But  the 
Capitol  was  recovered  by  the  Neapolitan  party,  through 
the  influence  of  money.k  The  Vatican  quarter  and  the 
Trastevere,  with  that  part  of  the  Campus  Martius  which 
is  nearest  to  the  river,  were  in  the  hands  of  John  and  of 
his  allies,  the  Orsini ;  bloody  encounters  were  frequent  in 
the  streets ; 1  and  after  repeated  attempts  to  gain  posses¬ 
sion  of  St.  Peter’s,  by  force  or  by  treaty,  with  a  view  to 
his  imperial  coronation,111  Henry  was  obliged  to  submit 
to  receive  the  crown  on  St.  Peter’s  day  in  the  half- 
minous  church  of  St.  John  Lateran,  which  had  lately  been 
in  great  part  destroyed  by  fire.n  For  this  there  was  a 
precedent  in  the  case  of  Lothair  III.,  who  had  been 


a  cardinal  to  excommunicate  the  in¬ 
habitants  ;  whereupon  the  cardinal  told 
him  that  the  Italians  did  not  care  for 
such  sentences,  and  gave  instances  in 
proof  of  this.  Sism.  iii.  260. 

f  Nic.  Botr.  912  ;  Alb.  Muss.  404. 
The  queen  died  on  Dec.  13,  of  a  pesti¬ 
lential  ailment  caught  at  Brescia.  Boh- 
mer,  296.  *  Alb.  Muss.  407. 

h  Nic.  Botr.  890,  906 ;  J.  Cerm.  1263; 
G.  Vill.  ix.  39.  For  the  state  of  Rome 
see  Alb.  Muss.  407,  449;  Barthold,  ii. 
173-5- 


1  Nic.  Botr.  916-18  ;  Ptol.  Luc.  44-5 ; 
Alb.  Muss.  455,  seqq. ;  Ferr.  Vic.  1099- 
1100;  Matth.  Neob.  in  Urstis.  ii.  117. 
This  part  of  the  story  is  very  fully  re¬ 
lated  by  Grcgorovius  and  von  Reu- 
mont.  See,  too,  Bohmer’s  summary, 
Regesta,  300-1. 
k  G.  Vill.  ix.  42. 

1  lb.  38;  Ptol.  Luc.  47-8;  Istor. 
Pistoles,  in  Murat,  xi.  40-2;  Gregorov, 
vi.  48. 

m  Alb.  Muss.  459.. 
n  See  p.  12. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  13x1-13. 


IN  ITALY. 


H  1 

/  o 


crowned  in  the  Lateran  because  St.  Peter’s  was  occupied 
by  the  antipope  Anacletus,0  and  it  was  sanctioned  by  a 
decree  of  the  Roman  senate  and  people;  p  but  the  three 
cardinals  who  had  been  commissioned  by  the  pope  to 
officiate,  did  not  consent  to  such  a  deviation  from  the 
usual  practice  until  after  much  difficulty  and  under  pro¬ 
test;*1  and  the  ceremony,  shorn  of  its  usual  splendour, 
was  performed  in  the  midst  of  danger  and  alarm.r 

Immediately  after  the  coronation,  the  duke  of  Bavaria 
and  others  of  Plenry’s  supporters  left  Rome  with  their 
troops,  in  fear  of  the  heats  which  had  so  often  been  fatal 
to  the  Germans  ;s  and  the  emperor  himself,  who  had  been 
reduced  to  great  straits  by  the  diminution  of  his  force, 
finally  took  his  departure  on  the  2oih  of  August.*  It  was 
in  vain  that  Clement  desired  Henry  and  Robert,  as  sons 
of  the  church,  to  make  peace  ;u  for  Henry,  having  been 
advised  by  his  legal  counsellors  that  the  pope  was  not 
entitled  to  interfere  thus  between  him  and  his  vassal, x  was 
determined  to  assert  the  fulness  of  his  imperial  rights. 

After  some  previous  formalities,  he  uttered  at  Pisa 
the  ban  of  the  empire,  by  which  Robert,  on  April  25, 
account  of  treasons  and  other  offences  which  I3I3- 
were  recited,  was  declared  to  have  forfeited  both  his 
southern  kingdom  and  the  county  of  Provence.  His 
subjects  were  absolved  from  their  allegiance,  and,  as  an 
outlaw,  he  was  threatened,  if  he  should  fall  into  the  ern- 


0  See  vol.v.  p.  87.  p  Alb.  Muss.  384. 
Q  Nicolas  of  Prato  was  one  of  these 
cardinals.  There  is  a  difference  of 
statement  as  to  the  amount  of  discre¬ 
tion  allowed  them  by  the  pope.  See 
Matth.  Neoburg,  in  Urstis.  ii.  117; 
Chron.  Ast.  236 ;  Alb.  Muss.  462-3. 

r  Pertz,  Leges,  ii.  529-32;  Ferr. 
Vicent.  1101  ;  Alb.  Muss.  462  ;  Nic. 
Botr.  918-19  ;  G.  Vill.  ix.  42  ;  Ptol.  Luc. 
42-8  ;  W.  Nang.  cont.  (See  a  letter  of 
Henry  to  Edward  of  England  and  the 
answer,  Rymer,  ii.  170,  210.)  Some 


wrongly  date  the  coronation  on  the 
festival  of  St.  Peter’s  chains,  Aug.  1 
(Barth,  ii.  212-15  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  60-2), 
and  Pius  II.  supposes  it  to  have  been 
performed  in  the  church  of  St.  Peter 
ad  Vincula.  Hist.  Frid.  in  Kollar,  ii. 
782. 

8  Nic.  Botr.  920;  Ferr.  Vic.  1108. 

*  Gregorov.  vi.  65-7,  72. 

u  Clementin.  II.  tit.  ix.  ;  Bohmer, 
303- 

x  Nic.  Botr.  921  ;  Barth,  ii.  272-3. 


74 


HENRY  VII.  IN  ITALY. 


Book  VIII. 


peror’s  hands,  with  the  same  death  which  his  own  grand¬ 
father,  the  founder  of  theAngevine  dynasty,  had  inflicted 
on  the  unfortunate  Conradin.y  The  pope  declared  this 
sentence  to  be  null,  and  reminded  Henry  of  his  caths  to 
the  apostolic  see  ;  to  which  Henry  replied  that  he  had 
taken  no  oath  of  fealty  to  any  one ;  and,  having  made 
this  declaration  solemnly  before  witnesses,  he  caused  it 
to  be  formally  recorded.2 

Henry’s  army  had  been  greatly  reduced  by  defections, 
war,  and  sickness,  and  he  was  obliged  to  wait  for  rein¬ 
forcements  from  Germany.  Yet  the  firmness  with  which 
he  held  to  his  purpose,  and  the  other  great  qualities  which 
he  displayed,  were  such  as  even  to  extort  the  admiration 
of  those  who  were  opposed  to  him.a  Being  as  yet  unable 
to  attack  Robert  directly,  he  laid  siege  to  Florence,  which 
now  for  the  first  time  began  to  take  a  promi- 

Oct^3  r»i2  nent  Part  m  ^e  general  politics  of  Italy;b  but 
the  strength  of  the  defence  and  a  sickness 


among  his  troops  obliged  him  to  relinquish  the  attempt. 
The  pope,  greatly  incensed,  threatened  excommunication 
and  interdict  against  any  one  who  should  invade  the 
Neapolitan  kingdom,  as  being  a  fief  of  the  church;0  but 


y  Pertz,  Leges,  ii.  545  ;  Nic.  Botr. 
924,  932-4;  G.  Vill.  ix.  49;  Alb.  Muss. 
524-31  ;  Clementin.  II.  tit.  xi.  c.  2  ; 
Matth.  Neoburg.  118;  Barth,  ii.  385-6. 
“  Vita  per  capitis  mutilationem  privan- 
dum  in  his  scriptis  sententialiter  con- 
demnamus."  Pertz,  546.  See  Olen- 
slager,  65. 

z  W.  Nang,  con  tin  66 ;  Gir.  Frachet. 
contin.  39;  Clementin.  II.  tit.  ix. ;  cf. 
xi.  2.  See  Schmidt,  iii.  499 ;  Schrockh, 
xxxi.  45 ;  Hallam,  ii.  32.  The  pope 
afterwards  declared  that  the  oath  was 
to  be  construed  as  one  of  fealty.  (Cle¬ 
mentin.  1.  c.  col.  121.)  John  of  Cer- 
menate  has  a  story  (which  looks  apocry¬ 
phal)  that  the  pope  was  terrified  by 
Philip  into  siding  with  Robert,  where¬ 
as  his  inclination  was  opposite.  1277. 


s  Murat.  Ann.  VIII.  i.  96.  For  in¬ 
stance,  the  Guelf  John  Villani,  ix.  1. 
The  bishop  of  Butrinto  seems  to  have 
considered  him  too  self-willed.  “  Do- 
minus  imperator  proprii  capitis  et  pro- 
prii  sensus  in  hoc  et  in  multis  aliis.  qui 
non  se  regebat  semper  per  consilium 
alicujus  nisi  per  suum,  sicut  omnes  qui 
in  suis  consiliis  magis  secretis  fuerunt, 
frequenter  sunt  experti.”  923. 

b  G.  Vill.  ix.  44;  Chron.  di  S.  Mini- 
ato,  in  Baluz.  Miscell.  i.  459,  seqq. 
Henry  had  before  cited  and  banned 
Florence,  Nov.  20  and  Dec.  24,  1311. 
(Pertz,  Leges,  ii.  519,  seqq.)  The  like 
as  to  other  Tuscan  cities,  April,  1312, 
and  Feb.  1313.  Ib.  524,  537. 

c  Although  the  popes  had  assumed 
the  suzerainty  of  the  kingdom*  the 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1312-13.  DEATH  OF  THE  EMPEROR. 


75 


Henry  replied  to  his  legate,  “  If  God  be  for  us,  neither 
the  pope  nor  the  church  will  destroy  us,  so  long  as  we 
do  not  offend  God.”  d  The  pope,  instigated  by  Philip’s 
influence  in  behalf  of  his  Neapolitan  kinsmen,  pronounced 
his  curses  ;e  but  before  the  publication  of  them,  Henry 
had  died  at  Buonconvento,  on  the  24th  of  August  1313, 
at  a  time  when  his  power  was  greater  and  when  his  pros¬ 
pects  appeared  brighter  than  they  had  ever  before  been.f 
His  death  appears  to  have  been  really  occasioned  by 
natural  causes ;  but  its  suddenness  gave  countenance  to 
the  suspicion  of  poison,  which  was  said  to  have  been 
administered  in  the  eucharistic  cup  by  his  confessor,  a 
Dominican  named  Bernard  of  Montepulciano,  who  had 
been  bribed  (according  to  various  theories)  by  Robert  of 
Naples,  by  Philip  of  France,  by  the  Florentines,  or  by 
the  pope.g 


emperors  had  never  relinquished  their 
claim  to  it.  See  vol.  v.  pp.  92-3. 
d  Nic.  Botr.  933. 
e  Ptol.  Luc.  53 ;  Barth,  ii.  410. 
f  It  was  noted  that  Henry  died  on 
the  anniversary  of  Conrad  in’s  defeat 
at  Tagliacozzo,  and  the  Guelfs  cele¬ 
brated  St.  Bartholomew’s  day  accord¬ 
ingly,  as  being  fatal  to  their  enemies. 
(Alb.  Muss.  568,  573-4 ;  Chron.  Regi- 
ense  in  Murat,  xviii.  26 ;  Gregorov. 
92.)  Fauriel  is  severe  on  Henry  VII., 
and  on  the  result  of  his  expedition  to 
Italy.  (‘  Dante,’  i.  222.)  In  favour  of 
Henry,  see  Reumont,  ii.  769. 

s  The  death  of  Henry  is  referred  to 
natural  causes  by  G.  Villani  (ix.  51), 
the  fifth  biographer  of  Pope  Clement 
(Baluz.  i.94),  Albertino  Mussato  (568), 
John  of  Cermenate  (1282),  and  Jordan 
in  Muratori,  Antiq.  Ital.  iii.  1031.  The 
story  of  the  poisoning  is  mentioned  by 
some  writers  with  incredulity  or  doubt, 
while  others  strongly  affirm  it.  (See 
Annal.  Lubic.  in  Pertz,  xvi.  423 ;  Chron. 
ai  Pisa  in  Baluz.  Miscell.  i.  453  ;  Ptol. 
Luc.  53  ;  Matth.  Neoburg.  118  ;  1st. 
Pistolesi,  404;  Chron.  Modoet.  mo; 


Trithem.  Chron.  Hirsaug.  a.d.  1313; 
W.  Nang,  contin.  67;  Ferret.  Vicent. 
115-17  ;  Chron.  di  S.  Miniato  in  Baluz. 
Miscell.  i.  461  ;  Annal.  Altah.  a.d. 
1 1 13  ;  Chron.  de  Melsa,  ii.  320  ;  Gesta 
Balduini,  in  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  iv.  402 ; 
Zantfliet,  163 ;  H.  Rebdorf,  etc.)  John 
of  St.  Victor  refers  the  death  to  an  im- 
posthume,  but  says  that  the  Germans 
and  the  imperialist  Pbans  charged 
the  Dominicans  with  having  poisoned 
the  emperor,  although  the  contrary  had 
been  proved  by  medical  witnesses. 
(Bouq.  xxi.  657.)  The  Franciscan 
John  of  Winterthur  tells  the  story  very 
circumstantially,  but  affects  to  conceal 
the  order  to  which  the  poisoner  be¬ 
longed  ;  and  he  adds  that  the  crime 
was  rewarded  with  a  bishoprick.  (Ec- 
card.  i.  177-81.)  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Dominican  Herman  Corner  is  very 
indignant  at  the  charge,  alleges  wit¬ 
nesses  to  clear  his  order,  and  recrimi¬ 
nates  on  the  Franciscans  as  to  members 
of  their  order  having  been  burnt  for 
heresy  (ib.  ii.  983).  No  less  is  the  in¬ 
dignation  of  another  Dominican,  Henry 
of  Hervorden  (230).  The  Dominicans 


76 


dante’s  treatise 


Book  VIII. 


With  Henry’s  attempt  to  restore  the  dignity  of  the 
empire  Dante’s  famous  treatise  ‘  Of  Monarchy  ’  is  con¬ 
nected  by  its  subject,  although  it  was  probably  composed 
somewhat  earlier.11  From  one  of  the  poet’s  letters  it  is 
inferred  that  he  waited  on  the  emperor  at  his  appearance 
in  Italy;1  and  his  interest  in  Henry  personally  appears 
from  a  well-known  passage  of  the  ‘  Paradise.’14  The 
treatise  ‘  Of  Monarchy  ’  may  be  regarded  as  a  remark¬ 
able  instance  of  the  manner  in  which  the  advance  of 
the  papal  claims  provoked  the  development  of  a  rival 
theory,  which  invested  the  emperor  with  a  majesty  partly 
derived  from  the  remembrance  of  the  ancient  Roman 
greatness,  and  partly  borrowed  from  the  theocratic  idea 


finding  themselves  much  defamed  and 
persecuted  on  account  of  the  alleged 
crime,  so  that  they  were  even  charged 
with  it  in  popular  rhymes  (Ptol.  Luc. 
xxiv.  40 ;  Chron.  Anon,  in  Bouq.  xxi. 
151  ;  Ferr.  Vicent.  117  ;  Cron,  di  Bo¬ 
logna  in  Murat,  xviii.  326),  tried  to 
vindicate  themselves  by  producing  tes¬ 
timonials  of  their  innocence,  especially 
one  from  Henry’s  son,  king  John  of 
Bohemia,  dated  1346  (in  Baluz.  Miscell. 

i.  326);  but  these  are  said  to  be  of 
doubtful  genuineness  (see  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  21-4).  Modern  writers  in  general 
acquit  them  ( e.g .,  Murat.  Ann.  VIII.  i. 
96;  Sism.  R.  I.  iii.  280-1  ;  Barthold,  ii. 
Beil.  i.  ;  Bohmer,  311-12).  Raynaldus 
charitably  says  of  Henry,  “  Siquid 
praeter  communem  ordinem  triste  acci¬ 
dent,  cur  non  in  divinas  iras  causa 
refcrri  possit,  cum  censuras  pontificias 
sperneret?”  (1313.  24-5.)  But  Olen- 
slager  believes  the  poisoning  (67),  while 
Gicseler(II.  iii.  23)  and  Palacky(II. 

ii.  104)  think  the  question  doubtful. 
It  was  said  that  Henry,  feeling  him¬ 
self  poisoned,  advised  the  confessor  to 
escape  before  his  crime  should  be  dis¬ 
covered  ;  and  that,  on  being  urged  to 
save  his  life  by  taking  an  emetic,  he 
replied  that  he  would  rather  die  than 
dishonour  the  Saviour’s  body.  Gesta 


Balduini,  1.  c.;  Joh.  Victor,  in  Bohmer, 
Fontes,  i.  376, 402  ;  Mart.  Polon.  contin. 
in  Eccard,  i.  1440;  Annal.  Lubic.  1.  c. ; 
Joh.  Vitodur.  1.  c.  etc. 

h  Gregorov.  vi.  21-2.  For  the  date, 
see  Lechler,  i.  101,  who  places  it  about 
1310.  The  Florentines,  both  whites 
and  blacks,  were  Guelfs  ;  but  the  whites 
(Dante’s  party)  when  expelled,  allied 
themselves  with  the  Ghibellines  of  vari¬ 
ous  towns.  Dante’s  avowal  of  absolute 
Ghibellinism  dates  from  Henry’s  ap¬ 
proach  to  Italy.  Fauriel,  ‘Dante/  etc., 
i.  211-12. 

“  Benignissimum  vidi  et  clementis- 
simum  te  audiviquum  pedes  tuosmanus 
meae  tractarunt  et  labia  mea  debitum 
persolverunt”  (Opere,  vi.  738,  seqq., 
ed.  Firenze,  1830-41).  In  this  letter 
(dated  April  16,  1311,  while  Hdnrywas 
besieging  Cremona),  Dante  is  vehement 
in  denunciation  of  his  Florentine  coun¬ 
trymen  (742),  and  it  is  said  to  have  led 
to  a  renewal  with  increased  severity 
of  the  decree  for  his  banishment.  See 
Barthold,  i  415,  535;  Fauriel,  ‘Dante/ 
i.  215. 

k  xxx.  133-8.  It  has  been  supposed 
that  Dante  also  celebrated  Henry  in 
other  poems.  See  Fauriel,  i.  223; 
Reumont,  ii.  767,  1205. 


Chap.  I. 


OK  MONARCHY. 


77 


of  the  papacy.  The  author  proposes  to  himseif  three 
questions  whether  monarchy  be  necessary  for  the  well¬ 
being  of  the  world ;  whether  the  Romans  acquired  their 
empire  rightfully ;  and  whether  the  monarch’s  authority 
be  derived  from  God  immediately,  or  through  some  other 
power ; — and  all  these  questions  he  decides  in  favour  of 
the  imperial  pretensions.1  He  argues  that  in  every 
society  there  must  be  a  head,  and  in  the  great  human 
society  this  head  must  be  a  monarch.  He  regards  this 
monarchy  as  absolute  and  universal,  and  declares  that 
such  a  government  is  the  only  means  of  establishing 
universal  peace,  which  never  existed  except  under  the 
empire  of  Augustus  Caesar. m  The  Romans,  he  says, 
were  the  noblest  of  peoples,  and  therefore  were  worthy 
of  universal  empire.  They  got  their  empire  rightfully ; 
for  they  got  it  by  war,  and  war  is  a  recourse  to  the  Divine 
arbitration.11  In  proof  of  this,  he  alleges  stories  of  miracles 
from  Livy  and  from  Virgil  ;°  and  he  argues  that,  if  the 
empire  were  not  of  right,  the  Saviour,  by  being  born 
under  it,  would  have  sanctioned  wrong,  p  In  the  third 
book,  Dante  discusses  the  question  of  the  emperor’s  de¬ 
riving  his  authority  from  God  immediately  or  mediately. 
He  admits  that  the  secular  power  is  under  certain  obliga¬ 
tions  to  the  spiritual  power ;  but  he  denies  that  the  phrase 
of  the  “two  swords  ”  showed  St.  Peter  to  be  possessed  of 
temporal  as  well  as  spiritual  governments  He  combats 
such  deductions  from  the  “  two  great  lights  ”  and  from 
other  scriptural  language  as  would  make  the  temporal 
power  inferior  to  the  spiritual ; r  and,  without  questioning 
the  genuineness  of  the  donation  ascribed  to  Constantine, 
he  denies  the  inferences  from  it  as  to  the  emperor’s  having 


1  Opere,  vi.  1.  i.  p.  520 ;  1.  iii.  p. 
684. 

ra  P.  561.  11  Pp.  564,  604,  612. 

0  Pp-  575-8. 

P  Pp.  6x4-18.  “  Vere  potuit  dicere 


vir  Romanus  quod  Apostolus  ad  Ti- 
motheum,  *  Reposita  est  mihi  corona 
justitise reposita  scilicet  in  Dei  pro- 
videntia  aeterna.”  P.  612.  1  P.  650. 

r  Pp.  638,  640,  seqq. 


73  CLEMENT  V.  AND  THE  VENETIANS.  Book  VIII. 

made  over  his  power  to  the  pope.s  As  the  empire  existed 
in  its  fulness  before  the  church,  it  could  not  be  derived 
from  the  church;1  the  emperor  has  his  power  immediately 
from  God,  and  he  is  chosen  by  God  alone,  while  the  so- 
styled  electors  are  merely  the  instruments  for  declaring 
the  Divine  will.u  The  whole  treatise — and  nothing  in  it 
more  signally  than  the  wild  inconsequence  of  some  of 
the  arguments — may  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  the 
fascination  which  the  idea  of  the  imperial  grandeur  and 
the  traditional  dignity  of  Rome  as  its  seat  could  exercise 
over  a  mind  lofty,  solitary,  perhaps  unequalled  in  some 
elements  of  greatness,  but  ill  fitted  for  the  practical  work 
of  human  politics.x 


The  pope  had  been  embroiled  with  the  Venetians  as  to 
Ferrara,  where,  on  the  death  of  Azzo  III.,  in  1308,  the  suc¬ 
cession  was  disputed  between  his  brother  Francis,  and  his 
illegitimate  son  Frisco. y  Frisco,  finding  himself  odious  to 
the  Ferrarese,  called  in  the  aid  of  the  Venetians,  to  whom 
he  afterwards  sold  his  interest  ; z  while  his  uncle  threw 
himself  on  the  protection  of  the  pope.a  The  Venetians, 
who  had  always  been  inclined  to  hold  themselves  in¬ 
dependent  of  Rome  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  persisted 
in  keeping  their  questionable  acquisition  ;  while  Clement 
advanced  an  apocryphal  claim  to  Ferrara  as  a  dependency 
of  the  Roman  see.b  A  papal  nuncio  was  insulted,  and 
even  stoned,  at  Venice;0  and  on  Maundy  Thursday 
1309,  the  pope  issued  a  bull  so  monstrous  that  even  the 
papal  annalist  Rinaldi d  is  ashamed  to  transcribe  it  at  full 


*  Pp.  656,  seqq. 

*  P.  668. 

"  Pp.  676-82. 

x  Antoninus  is  severe  on  Dante’s  the¬ 
ory  as  to  the  superiority  of  the  empire 
over  the  church,  iii.  307. 

y  Ferret.  Vicent.  1037 ;  Cron,  di  Bo¬ 
logna,  in  Murat,  xviii.  315  ;  Murat. 
Ann.  VIII.  i.  1-49;  Sismondi,  R.  I.  iii. 


243.  Frisco  is  another  form  of  Francis. 

z  Ricobald.  in  Murat,  ix.  255-6 ; 
Ferret.  Vicent.  ib.  1039. 

a  Cron.  Est.  in  Murat,  xv.  364 ; 
Cron,  di  Bologna,  318. 

b  Annal.  Parm.  in  Pertz,  xviii.  758 ; 
Daru,  i.  474. 

c  Ferret.  Vicent.  1043;  Daru,  i.  479. 

d  1309-  7. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1309-13.  BULL  AGAINST  VENICE. 


79 


lengths  Clement  declared  by  it  that,  unless  the  Venetians 
would  submit,  they  should  be  excluded  from  religious 
offices,  from  civil  intercourse,  and  from  all  benefit  of 
laws ;  their  magistrates  were  to  be  branded  as  infamous, 
their  doge  was  to  be  stripped  of  the  ensigns  of  office, 
their  whole  property  was  to  be  subject  to  confiscation, 
they  were  to  be  liable  to  slavery,  and  their  goods  were 
to  be  at  the  mercy  of  any  who  might  care  to  plunder 
them.  Princes  were  invited  to  carry  out  these  outrageous 
denunciations,  and  a  crusade  was  proclaimed  against  the 
republic,  with  the  usual  promise  of  indulgences.  The 
clergy  and  monks  withdrew  from  Venice  in  obedience  to 
the  pope’s  order,  and  multitudes  were  readily  found  to 
catch  at  the  license  to  plunder  which  was  held  out  in  the 
name  of  religion.  In  England  and  in  France  the  pro¬ 
perty  of  Venetian  traders  was  violently  seized  ;  at  Genoa 
and  in  the  ports  of  the  Romagna,  of  Tuscany,  and  of 
Calabria,  many  of  them,  in  addition  to  the  loss  of  their 
effects,  were  reduced  to  slavery,  or  even  were  slain. 
Cardinal  Arnold  of  Pelagrue/  whom  the  pope  had 
commissioned  as  legate  for  Tuscany  and  northern  Italy, 
marched  an  army  to  Ferrara,  which  he  took  with  great 
slaughter  by  the  aid  of  the  party  opposed  to  Frisco ; 
and  he  exercised  cruel  vengeance  on  the  Venetians  who 
fell  into  his  hand.g  The  interdict  on  Venice  continued 
in  force  until  the  year  1313,  when  Francis  Dandolo 
(afterwards  doge)  was  sent  to  the  papal  court  at  Avignon, 
and,  by  the  adroitness  of  his  submission,  was  able  to 
obtain  the  absolution  of  his  countrymen.11 

Feeling  his  health  declining,  Clement  in  1314  resolved 


*  Ptol.  Luc.  32;  Bern.  Guid.  69; 
Ferr.  Vic.  1044  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  19. 
Muratori  calls  it  “la  piu  terribil  ed  in- 
giusta  bolla  che  se  sia  mai  udita.” 
Ann.  VIII.  i.  1-54. 

{  Ferr.  Vic.  1044  ;  Daru,  i.  484. 


6  G.  Vill.  viii.  X15  ;  Ferret.  Vic. 
1046-7 ;  Ptol.  Luc.  32-5 ;  Annal.  Parm. 
751  ;  Bern.  Guid.  in  Baluz.  Vit.  Pap. 
Aven.  i.  69. 

h  Rayn.  1313.  31-4 ;  Daru,  i.  515. 


So 


DEATHS  OF  CLEMENT  AND  PHILIP. 


Book  VIII. 


to  seek  a  restoration  of  it  by  a  visit  to  his  native  province  ; 
but  he  had  proceeded  no  further  than  Roquemaure,  on 
the  western  bank  of  the  Rhone,  when  death  came  on 
him  on  the  20th  of  April.1  His  body  was  removed  to 
Carpentras  for  burial ;  and  it  was  said  that,  having  been 
left  unattended  in  a  church,  it  was  partly  burnt  in  a  con¬ 
flagration  occasioned  by  the  candles  which  were  placed 
around  it.k  Notwithstanding  the  expenses  of  his  court 
and  the  rapacity  of  his  mistress,  he  left  vast  wealth  to  his 
nephewsT” 

Ignominious  as  Clement’s  subserviency  to  the  king  of 
France  appears,  he  had  yet  been  able  by  his  policy  to 
gain  some  points  which  would  have  been  certainly  lost  if 
he  had  attempted  to  carry  on  the  lofty  manner  of  Boni¬ 
face.  His  underhand  dealings  had  frustrated  Philip’s 
attempt  to  gain  the  imperial  crown  for  the  reigning 
family  of  France  ;  he  had  succeeded  in  rescuing  the 
memory  of  his  predecessor  from  reprobation,  and  by  so 
doing  had  rescued  the  credit  of  the  papacy  itself.m 

The  last  years  of  Philip  the  Fair  were  not  happy,  and 
many  saw  in  the  troubles  which  befel  him  the  punishment 
of  his  outrages  against  pope  Boniface  or  of  his  injustice 
to  the  Templars. n  He  was  dishonoured  in  his  family  by 
the  infidelity  of  his  queen  0  and  of  the  wives  of  his  three 


1  Ptol.  Luc.  54-6;  Hist,  de  Langued. 
iv.  158.  Ptolemy  says  that  “sicut  au- 
divi  a  suo  confessore  fide  digno,”  Cle¬ 
ment  was  never  well  after  he  had  issued 
certain  constitutions  unfavourable  to 
the  mendicants  (the  Exivi  de  Pn  rad  iso, 
Clementin.  V.  xi.  i).  Cf.  Baluz.  note, 
p.  615  ;  Bern.  Guid.  77. 

k  G.  Vill.  ix.  58  ;  Vita  I.  p.  22  ;  F. 
Pipin.  in  Murat,  ix.  751. 

1  G.  Vill.  ix.  58.  Dante  refers  to 
Clement’s  love  of  money  : — 

*  Ben  puoi  tu  dire,  Io  ho  fermo  il  disiro 
Si  a  colui  che  voile  viver  solo, 

E  che  per  salti  fu  tratto  a  martiro, 

Ch’io  non  conosco  il  Pescator  ne  Polo.” 

(Parad.  xviii .Jin.) ; 


the  Florentine  coins  being  stamped 
with  the  figure  of  St.  John  the  Baptist. 
The  pope’s  subserviency  to  Philip  is 
denounced  in  the  ‘  Inferno,’  xix.  82, 
seqq. 

m  Milman,  v.  238.  For  Clement’s 
contributions  to  ecclesiastical  law,  see 
hereafter,  Ch.  XI.  i.  3. 

n  Antonin,  iii.  288 ;  Anon.  Cado- 
mensis,  in  Bouq.  xxii.  25. 

0  W.  Nang.  cont.  68.  With  the  name 
of  this  queen,  Jane  of  Navarre,  is  con¬ 
nected  the  legend  of  the  Tour  de  Nesle. 
See  Bayle,  art.  Buridan ;  Michelet, 
iii.  212-15. 


Chap.  I.  a.d.  1312-14. 


DEATH  OF  PHILIP. 


8l 


sons.p  The  falsification  of  the  coinage,  and  his  other 
oppressive  means  of  raising  money, q  although  they  failed 
to  enrich  him,  provoked  discontents  which  sometimes 
found  a  vent  in  insurrection  and  compelled  him  to  with¬ 
draw  his  offensive  measures.1-  But  in  the  meantime  his 
piety  and  his  cruelty  were  shown  at  once  in  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  religious  error,  as  in  the  case*  of  Margaret 
Porrette,  a  native  of  Hainault,  who  in  1310  was  burnt 
for  having  produced  a  book  on  the  Love  of  God,  written 
in  a  strain  of  mystical  fervour  which  seems  to  have 
bordered  on  the  errors  of  the  sect  of  the  Free  Spirit.5* 
So  noted  was  Philip’s  zeal  for  orthodoxy,  that  Arnold  of 
Villeneuve,  a  ProvenQal  physician,  and  professor  in  the 
university  of  Paris,  after  having  published  a  book  against 
the  prevailing  religious  system,  thought  it  well  to  secure 
his  safety  by  seeking  a  refuge  in  Sicily.1 

After  a  reign  of  twenty-nine  years,  Philip,  although  he 
had  reached  only  the  age  of  forty-six,  was  prematurely 
broken  and  worn  out.  An  accident  which  befel  him  while 
hunting  in  the  forest  of  Fontainebleau  produced  an  illness, 
which  he  is  said  to  have  borne  with  great  patience  ;  and 
on  the  29th  of  November  1314  he  died,  leaving  the 
memory  of  a  rule  more  despotic  and  oppressive  than  any 
that  had  been  known  in  France.u 


P  G.  Vill.  ii.  69;  W.  Nang,  contin. 
1.  c. ;  Martin,  iv.  506. 

'l  Antoninus  says  that  he  was  too  fond 
of  pleasures — especially  of  hunting — 
and  so  left  the  management  of  affairs 
to  officers  who  managed  ill. 

W.  Nang,  contin.  67,  69.  The 
chronicler  Joinville,  at  the  age  of  too, 
was  one  of  those  who  signed  a  remon¬ 
strance  against  Philip’s  oppressive 
measures.  Martin,  iv.  509-11. 

8  The  continuer  of  William  of  Nan- 
gis  (p  63)  says  that  she  taught  “  quod 
anima  adnihilata  in  amore  conditoris 
sine  reprehensione  conscientise  vel  re- 
morsu  potest  et  debet  naturae  quidquid 

VOL.  VII. 


appetit  et  desiderat  concedere.”  See 
Mosheim  de  Beghardis,  236. 

1  Bulseus,  iv.  121.  J.  Villani  says 
only  that  Arnold's  book  was  a  specula¬ 
tion  on  the  coming  of  Antichrist  (ix.  3)  ; 
and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  Antoninus, 
iii.  284.  For  the  errors  imputed  to 
Arnold,  and  for  a  list  of  his  books,  see 
Eymeric,  265,  316. 

u  Chron.  de  Flandre,  in  Bouq.  xxii. 
401.  The  continuer  of  William  of  Nan- 
gis  says  that  the  cause  of  the  king’s 
illness  was  unknown  (69).  Philip  is 
not  without  eulogists  among  the  writers 
of  the  time,  such  as  William  the  Scot, 
who  ascribes  all  his  objectionable  mea- 

6 


82 


Book  VIII. 


CHAPTER  II. 


FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  POPE  CLEMENT  V.  TO  THAT  OF 
THE  EMPEROR  LEWIS  IV. 


A.  D.  I314-I347. 


The  cardinals  met  at  Carpentras,  the  place  of  Clement 
V.’s  burial,  for  the  election  of  a  successor  to  him.a  Of 
twenty-three  who  composed  the  college,  six  only  were 
Italians,  and  the  feeling  of  these  is  shewn  in  a  letter 
which  was  addressed  by  one  of  them,  Napoleon  Orsini, 
to  king  Philip.  The  cardinal  expresses  his  deep  dis¬ 
satisfaction  with  the  result  of  the  last  election.  Rome 
and  Italy  had  suffered  by  Clement’s  withdrawal,  and  had 
fallen  a  prey  to  confusion.  The  patronage  of  bishopricks 
and  other  ecclesiastical  dignities  had  been  prostituted  to 
money  or  to  family  interest.  The  Italian  cardinals  had 
been  slighted  in  all  possible  ways ;  the  pope  had  shown 
his  intention  to  confine  the  church  to  a  corner  of  Gascony  : 
and  the  letter  concludes  by  praying  that  Philip  would 
concur  towards  the  election  of  a  pope  who  may  be  as 
unlike  his  predecessor  as  the  good  of  the  church  required 
that  he  should  be.b 

The  Italians  urged  a  return  to  Rome,  and  maintained 
that,  in  order  to  preserve  the  ascendency  of  the  pope 
over  the  hearts  of  men,  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  must  be 


sures  to  his  counsellors,  and  extols  his 
piety  very  greatly.  Among  other  things 
this  writer  tells  us  that  the  king  on  his 
death-bed  called  his  eldest  son  to  him, 
and,  in  the  presence  of  his  confessor 
alone,  instructed  him  in  the  manner 
of  touching  the  sick,  and  in  the  form 
of  words  to  be  used  for  the  purpose 
(Bouquet,  xxi.  207).  An  anonymous 
chronicler  says,  “Fuit  autem  conver- 


sationehumilis  et  modestus,  generosus, 
largus,  magnificus,  liberalis  et  pius.” 
Ib.  xxii.  17. 

R  Ptol.  Luc.  i.  4.  Clement’s  body 
was  afterwards  removed  to  Uzeste,  in 
Gascony.  See  Ciacon.  ii.  360,  389. 
FI  is  splendid  tomb  there  was  demol¬ 
ished  by  the  Huguenots  in  1568.  Bui. 
iv.  169. 

b  Baluz.  V.  Pap.  Aven.  ii.  289,  seqq. 


CHAP.  II.  A.D.  1314. 


THE  PAPACY  VACANT. 


83 


fixed  in  the  apostle’s  own  city.c  To  this  course  they  were 
strongly  urged  by  the  great  poet  of  the  age,  who  addressed 
a  letter  to  them,  in  which  he  represented  the  faults  which 
were  commonly  imputed  to  their  order,  lamented  the 
condition  of  Rome,  “  now  deprived  of  both  lights  ”  (the 
empire  and  the  papacy),  “  sitting  solitary  and  a  widow  ”  ; 
and  he  exhorted  them  to  make  the  disgrace  of  the 
Gascons,  who  greedily  attempted  to  usurp  the  glory  of 
the  Latins,  a  warning  to  future  ages.d  The  French 
cardinals,  although  nearly  thrice  as  many  as  the  Italians, 
hesitated  to  force  an  election  by  outvoting  them  ;  but 
while  the  conclave  was  sitting,  two  of  Clement’s  nephews, 
under  pretence  of  accompanying  his  body,  entered  the 
town  at  the  head  of  a  party  of  Gascons,  who,  with 
shouts  of  “  Death  to  the  Italians  !  ” — “We  will  have  the 
pope !  ”  attacked  the  houses  of  the  Italian  cardinals, 
killed  many  of  their  dependents,  and  began  to  plunder 
and  to  burn  in  several  quarters.  The  palace  in  which  the 
cardinals  were  assembled  was  set  on  fire,  and  they  were 
compelled  to  make  their  escape  by  breaking  through  the 
back  wall  of  the  building. e  The  cardinals  were  scattered 
“  like  frightened  partridges  ”  ; f  and  although  Philip  urged 
them  to  meet  at  Lyons  for  an  election, s  the  matter  was 
unsettled  at  the  time  of  his  death. 

His  son  and  successor,  Lewis  X.,  who  from  his  noisy 
and  disorderly  habits  acquired  the  name  of  Hitting  was 


®  Vita  I.  Joh.  XXII.,  ib.  113  ;  W. 
Nang,  contin.  68. 

d  Dante.  Ep.  4  (Opere,  vi.  Florence, 
1841)  ,  G.  Villani,  ix.  134  ;  Gregorov. 
III.  100.  The  editor  supposes  the 
letter  to  have  been  written  in  the 
earlier  part  of  the  vacancy,  before  the 
impotence  of  the  Italian  cardinals  had 
become  manifest.  753. 

e  Letter  of  Italian  cardinals  in  Wil¬ 
kins,  ii.  440  ;  Baluz.  V.  Pap.  Aven.  i. 
687;  ii.  287-8;  John  XXII.’s  bull 


against  those  concerned  in  the  outrage, 
ib.  388. 

f  W.  Nang,  contin.  68. 

s  Baluz.  ii.  293.  There  are  letters 
from  Edward  II.  of  England,  urging  an 
election.  (Rymer,  ii.  249,  277.)  Philip 
had  in  1310  acquired  Lyons,  which  until 
then  had  not  been  even  feudally  subject 
to  the  French  crown.  See  Bern.  Guid. 
in  Baluz.  V.  Pap.  Aven.  i.  77 ;  Hallam, 
M.  A.  i.  41. 

h  Sismondi,  ix.  193,  seqq.  The  chro- 


S4 


ELECTION  OF 


Book  VIII. 


a  frivolous,  prodigal,  childish  prince,1  and  while  he  gave 
himself  up  to  the  amusements  of  the  tilt-yard  and  to  other 
enjoyments,  the  real  conduct  of  affairs  was  in  the  hands 
of  his  uncle,  Charles  of  Valois.  The  late  king’s  ministers 
and  instruments  were  disgraced  :  Enguerrand  de  Marigny 
and  others  of  them  were  put  to  death  ; k  and  in  the  course 
of  the  proceedings  against  them  were  discovered  the  arts 
of  some  sorcerers,  who,  in  complicity  (as  was  said)  with 
Marigny,  his  wife,  and  his  sister,  were  supposed  to  prac¬ 
tise  against  the  lives  of  the  king,  of  his  uncle  Charles,  and 
of  others,  by  placing  waxen  images  of  them  before  a  slow 
fire,  when,  as  the  figure  gradually  melted  away,  a  corre¬ 
sponding  decrease  took  place  in  the  fleshly  substance  of 
the  person  who  was  represented.1 

The  spirit  of  party  was  strong  among  the  cardinals. 
The  Gascons  would  have  no  one  but  a  Gascon  for  pope, 
while  those  who  had  been  discontented  under  Clement 
were  not  inclined  to  elect  one  of  his  countrymen.  In 
consequence  of  these  differences  the  papacy  had  already 
been  vacant  two  years, m  when  Lewis,  by  promising  that 
the  rule  for  closing  the  conclave  should  not  be  enforced, 
persuaded  the  members  of  the  college  to  assemble  at 
Lyons  for  an  election,  and  deputed  his  brother  Philip, 
count  of  Poitiers,  to  superintend  it.  But  before  any 
decision  had  taken  place,  Philip  was  informed  that  Lewis 


nicle  ascribed  to  John  Desnouelles, 
however,  says  that  he  was  so  called, 
“  pour  ce  que  moult  estoit  desiranz  de 
combattre  as  Flamens."  Bouq.  xxi. 
196. 

•  “  Largus  erat  et  prodigus  et  admo- 
dum  puerilis.”  Joh.  S.  Viet,  in  Bouq. 
xxi.  661. 

k  W.  Nang,  contin.  69  ;  B.  Guidon. 
82.  It  is  said  that  when  Charles  of 
Valois  was  paralyzed  in  1325,  he  gave 
alms,  that  the  poor  might  pray  for  En- 
guerrand  and  himself,  putting  Marigny 
first,  in  token  of  remorse  for  his  death. 


Ib.  84. 

1  W.  Nang,  contin.  69,  70  ;  Joh.  S. 
Viet,  in  Bouq.  xxi.  660.  See  Eymeric, 
347.  This  practice  was  called  invitl- 
tuation  (jmltus  being  sometimes  used 
to  signify  a  whole  figure).  Pins  or 
needles  were  sometimes  stuck  into  the 
images,  in  order  to  produce  pain  in  the 
corresponding  part  of  the  victim’s  body. 
Sec  Ducange,  s.  v.  Invultare ;  Mait¬ 
land  on  False  Worship,  291-9  (Lond. 
1856). 

“  G.  Vill.  ix.  79. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1316. 


POPE  JOHN  XXII. 


?5 


had  suddenly  died,  on  the  fifth  of  July  13 1 11  an^>  being 
advised  by  some  counsellors  that  the  engagement  as  to 
the  conc'ave  was  illegal,  and  therefore  invalid,0  he  ordered 
that  the  Dominican  convent,  in  which  the  cardinals  were 
assembled,  should  be  walled  up  and  guarded,  while  he 
himself  set  off  to  secure  his  own  interests  in  the  new 
circumstances  of  the  kingdom.?  A  son  whom  the 
widowed  queen  bore  after  her  husband’s  death  lived 
only  a  few  days^  and  as  the  only  other  child  of  Lewis, 
a  daughter,  was  set  aside  on  account  of  her  sex,  Philip 
« the  Long  ”  himself  became  king,r  although  not  without 
a  protest  in  the  name  of  the  excluded  princess. 

The  cardinals  were  at  length  brought,  through  the 
management  of  Napoleon  Orsini,  to  elect  James  d’Euse, 
or  Duese,8  cardinal  of  Porto,  who  took  the  name  of  John 
XXI Id  John  was  a  native  of  Cahors,  and  appears  to 
have  been  the  son  of  a  respectable  citizen  of  that  place,11 
although  some  represent  him  as  descended  from  a  knightly 
family,  while  others  make  his  father  a  tavern-keeper  01  a 
cobbler.x  He  was  a  man  of  small  stature,  of  simple  per¬ 
sonal  habits,  and  of  vehement  and  bitter  temper;  he  was 
distinguished  for  his  acuteness,  his  eloquence,  and  learn* 


11  His  age  was  only  twenty-seven. 
Some  groundlessly  ascribed  his  death 
to  poison — as  J.  Desnouelles,  in  Bouq. 

xxi.  197-  „  , 

0  Vita  I.  Joh.  XXII.  ap.  Baluz.  1. 
115.  Bernard  Guidonis  says,  that  the 
condition  was  not  kept,  “quatenus  pro 
majorebono  rei  pubhcae,  quse  praefeitur 
privatae,  compellerentur  ecclesise  provi- 
dere.”  81. 

p  W.  Nang,  contin.  71.  q  lb.  72- 
r  lb.  71-2;  Vita  I.  Joh.  115-16;  B. 
Guid.  84 :  “  Tunc  etiam  declaratum 
fuit  quod  ad  coronam  Franciae  mulier 
non  succedit.”  W.  Nang,  contin.  1.  c. 

*  This  is  the  form  approved  by  Ber- 
trandy,  *  Recherches  historiques  sur  le 
Pape  Jean  XXII.’  Paris,  1854. 
t  o.  Vill.  ix.  79 ;  Vita  VI.  p.  185 ; 


Baluz.  V.  Pap.  Aven.  i.  785. 

u  “Ex  patre  plebeio’  (Ferr.  Vicent. 
1167).  “De  militari  progenie  natus” 
(Matth.  Neoburg.  125).  Cf.  G.  Vill. 
ix.  79 ;  Antonin,  iii.  29  ;  Baluz.  i.  689. 
M.  Bertrandy  says,  that  his  father  was 
one  of  the  principal  citizens,  but  not 
noble  ;  and  supposes  the  notion  of  the 
father’s  having  been  a  cobbler  to  have 
grown  out  of  the  word  huese  —  brode- 
quin  (28-31).  Was  John  the  father  of 
three  brothers  De  Aux,  who  were  legi¬ 
timatized  by  the  French  king  in  1340, 
as  being  “ex  copula  detestanda,  de 
pontifice  videlicet  in  pontificali  digni- 
tate,  gradu,  seu  ordine  constituto 
(Baluz.  ii.  600)? 

x  Ferr.  Vic.  m6  ;  Vita  I.  p.  116. 


86 


JOHN  XXII. 


Book  VIII. 


ing;y  he  had  been  chancellor  to  king  Robert  of  Naples, 
and  had  held  the  sees  of  Frejus  and  of  Avignon,  to  the 
latter  of  which  he  was  promoted  by  Clement  V.,  in  com¬ 
pliance  with  a  recommendation  which  was  signed  and 
sealed  by  the  chancellor  in  the  king’s  name,  but  to  which 
Robert  himself  was  not  privy.2  He  had  been  employed 
in  Italy  to  inquire  into  the  case  of  Boniface  VIII.  ;a  at 
the  council  of  Vienne  he  had  rendered  important  services 
to  Clement  by  labouring  both  for  the  rescue  of  Boniface’s 
memory  and  for  the  condemnation  of  the  Templars  ;  and 
these  services  had  been  rewarded  by  his  promotion  to  the 
dignity  of  cardinal. b 

It  is  said  that  at  the  election  John  conciliated  the  Italian 
cardinals  by  swearing  that  he  would  never  mount  on 
horseback  unless  to  return  to  Rome ;  and  that  he  eluded 
his  oath  by  descending  the  Rhone  to  Avignon  in  a  boat, 
and  walking  from  the  landing-place  to  the  papal  palace, 
which  he  never  afterwards  quitted,  except  in  order  to 
attend  the  services  of  the  neighbouring  cathedral.0 

But  although  John  remained  in  France,  his  condition 
was  very  different  from  that  of  his  predecessor.  The 
kings  with  whom  he  had  to  deal  did  not  possess  the 
vigour  of  Philip  the  Fair ;  and  the  air  which  the  pope  as¬ 
sumed  towards  them  was  not  that  of  a  subordinate  but  of 
a  superior.41  Even  if  he  endeavoured  to  bring  about  that 


y  G.  Vill.  ix.  20 ;  W.  Nang,  contin. 
71.  Petrarch  speaks  of  him  as  “homo 
perstudiosus,”  etc.  (Rer.  Mcmorab. 
ii.  5,  p.  481.)  Ferretti  says  that  king 
Robert  pushed  on  his  election,  not 
without  the  use  of  money,  in  the  hope 
of  using  him  against  Frederick  of  Sicily 
and  others.  1.  c. 

z  G.  Vill.  ix.  79 ;  Antonin,  iii.  292. 
The  story  as  told  by  Ferretti  (1168)  is 
that  Robert  asked  Clement  why  James 
had  been  promoted  so  highly.  “  To 
please  you,  and  at  your  recommenda¬ 
tion,”  was  the  answer.  Whereupon  the 


king,  instead  of  exposing  the  trick, 
thanked  the  pope,  and  made  sure  of 
the  bishop  as  a  tool. 

“  Rayn.  1310.  37-8. 
b  Ferr.  Vicent.  1169. 
c  Vita  V.  p.  178 ;  or  Ptol.  Luc.  in 
Murat,  xi.  1213 ;  Chron.  de  Melsa,  ii. 
318.  Baluze  questions  the  story  (i. 
793).  John  rode  on  the  day  of  his 
coronation  ;  but,  perhaps,  he  may  not 
have  reckoned  himself  to  be  then  fully 
in  power.  See  Hefele,  vi.  507. 

d  Martin,  iv.  543.  He  wrote  to  Philip 
V.  as  if  the  king  were  a  child,  reproving 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1316-17.  PERSECUTION  OF  SORCERERS. 


37 


transference  of  the  imperial  crown  to  the  royal  house  of 
France  which  Clement's  art  had  been  employed  to  pre¬ 
vent,  it  was  with  a  view  to  establishing  more  thoroughly 
the  superiority  of  the  papacy  over  the  empire.  He  took 
it  on  himself,  in  disregard  of  a  right  which  had  always 
been  claimed  by  sovereigns,6  to  redistribute  the  dioceses 
of  southern  France,  erecting  Toulouse  into  an  archbishop- 
rick,  with  six  suffragan  bishops  under  it,f  and  to  make 
similar  changes  in  other  parts  of  the  kingdom. g  And,  in 
reliance  at  once  on  his  pontifical  authority  and  on  his 
personal  reputation  for  learning,  he  undertook  to  reform 
and  to  dictate  to  the  universities  of  Paris,  Toulouse,  and 
Orleans.11 

John  was  especially  severe  against  those  magical  prac¬ 
tices  which  have  been  already  mentioned,  and  by  the 
fear  of  which  the  public  mind  was  at  that  time  thrown 
into  a  state  of  panic.1  The  Inquisition  was  employed  to 
discover  those  who  carried  on  invultuation  or  similar  arts 
— with  whom  the  remains  of  the  Albigensian  sectaries 
were  sometimes  confounded. k  For  such  crimes  (real  or 
imaginary)  many  persons  were  put  to  death ;  among  them 


him  for  talking  at  the  services  of  the 
church,  especially  the  mass,  charging 
him  to  respect  the  Lord’s  day  by  re¬ 
fraining  lrom  bathing,  from  getting  his 
beard  and  hair  trimmed,  etc.  Rayn. 
I3I7-  3.  etc. 

e  See  vol.  iv.  p.  148  ;  vol.  v.  p.  355. 

f  Extrav.  Commun.  iii.  cc.  5-6  (dated 
7  Kal.  Jul.  and  4  Non.  Aug.  of  his  first 
year) ;  W.  Nang,  contin.  71  ;  Th. 
Niem,  in  Eccard,  i.  1469.  See  Ad. 
Murimuth,  28  ;  Hist.  Langued.  iv. 
168-72  ;  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  i.  135-7,  187-90. 
The  abbot  ot  Castres  protested  against 
having  a  bishop  put  over  him,  on  the 
ground  that  the  king’s  consent  had  not 
been  had,  and  “  quod  Dominus  Papa 
Johannes  adhserens  vestigiis  suorum 
prsedecessorum,  satagit  adj  ungere  supe- 
rioritati  imperii  spiritualis  ad  ilium  per- 


tinentis  in  universum  orbem  superiori- 
tatem  omnis  imperii  temporalis  ;  ”  with 
which  view  he  intended  to  strengthen 
himself  by  multiplying  bishops.  But 
this  objector  was  pacified  by  being 
allowed  to  retain  the  title  of  abbot,  with 
a  handsome  allowance  out  of  the  con¬ 
ventual  revenues.  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.,  ii. 
309-1  x  ;  Hist.  Langued.  iv.,  Preuves, 
21. 

s  Thus  the  diocese  of  Poitiers  was 
divided  into  three.  W.  Nang,  contin. 
1.  c.  John  intended  to  do  the  like  in 
certain  Spanish  and  Portuguese  dio¬ 
ceses,  but  did  not  carry  out  the  plan 
fully.  Rayn.  1318.  38-9. 
h  Milm.  v.  250. 

1  See,  e.g.,  Rayn.  1317.  52,  seqq. 
k  Gir.  Frach.  contin.  56 ;  Hist.  Lan¬ 
gued.  iv.  207  ;  Rayn.  1320.  31. 


88 


PERSECUTION  OF  SORCERERS, 


Book  VIII. 


was  Hugh  Geraldi,  the  bishop  of  John’s  native  city,  who, 
having  been  found  guilty  of  having  compassed  the  pope’s 
death  by  unhallowed  arts,  was  degraded  from  his  orders, 
flayed  alive,  and  torn  asunder  by  horses,  after  which  his 
^  remains  were  dragged  through  the  town  to  the 

place  of  public  execution,  where  they  were 
burnt.1  The  lepers,  who,  during  the  time  of  the  crusades 
had  generally  been  regarded  with  compassion,  and  who, 
in  the  early  days  of  the  Franciscan  order,  had  been  the 
special  objects  of  its  charity,  now  fell  under  suspicion  of 
a  conspiracy  against  the  rest  of  mankind.  It  was  said 
that  they  were  engaged  in  a  design  to  poison  all  the  wells 
of  France,  by  putting  into  them  little  bags,  containing 
the  consecrated  host,  mixed  with  human  blood,  herbs, 
and  various  loathsome  substances  ;  that  by  such  means 
they  hoped  either  to  destroy  all  Christians,  or  to  infect 
them  with  their  own  miserable  disease  ;  that  with  a  view 
to  this  plot  they  had  held  four  general  councils,  at  which 
all  lazar-houses  were  represented;  that  they  had  been 
instigated  to  the  crime  by  Jews,  who  were  the  agents  of 
the  Moorish  king  of  Granada ; ra  and  that,  while  lending 


1  A.  Murimuth,  26  ;  Chron.  de  Melsa, 
ii.  319  ;  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  i.  170, 187  ;  Th. 
Niem  in  Ecc  ird,  i.  484  ;  Platina,  253. 
See  Bertrandy,  ‘Un  Eveque  supplicie,’ 
Paris,  1865.  The  bishop  was  charged 
with  extortion,  injustice,  corruption, 
vicious  life,  putting  people  to  death 
with  tortures,  etc.  (47-52).  For  these 
offences  he  was  tried  by  a  commission 
and  condemned  to  imprisonment  for 
life ;  but  being  afterwards  convicted 
on  charges  of  poisoning  the  pope’s 
nephew  and  of  invultuation,  he  was 
punished  as  the  text  relates  (61).  John 
of  Winterthur  says  that  the  pope  was 
believed  to  have  proceeded  cruelly 
against  this  bishop  on  no  other  evidence 
than  that  of  a  dream.  (Eccard,  i.  1802.) 
A  nephew  of  the  pope  himself  was 
charged  with  invultuation  under 


Charles  IV.,  but  the  king  declared  him 
innocent.  Hist,  de  Langued.  iv.,  Pr. 
No.  87. 

m  Phil.  V.  in  Hist.  Langued.  iv., 
Preuves,  p.  163  ;  Mansi,  xxv.  570-2  ; 
Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  i.  130-2  ;  W.  Nang, 
contin.  78;  Gir.  Frach.  contin.  56; 
Sism.  ix.  395-7.  Some  of  them  are 
said  to  have  confessed.  (Hist.  Lan¬ 
gued.,  Pr.  163-4.)  The  lepers  were 
supposed  to  have  settled  among  them¬ 
selves  the  dignities  which  they  were  to 
assume  when  triumphant  ;  one  was  to 
be  king  of  France,  another,  king  of 
England,  and  so  on.  (Chron.  Anon,  in 
Bouq.  xxi.  152.)  Henry  of  llervorden, 
who  attributes  the  persecution  to  Philip, 
says  that  his  real  motive  was  a  fear  of 
their  numbers,  “necontagionepestifera 
tota  terra  fortassis  interliceretur.”  23a 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1316-20.  LEPERS  AND  JEWS. 


s9 


themselves  to  the  plots  of  the  infidels,  the  lepers  had 
engaged  themselves  to  deny  the  Christian  faith.  In  con¬ 
sequence  of  these  wild  tales,  a  general  persecution  was 
carried  on  against  the  lepers.  In  some  places  they  were 
shut  up  in  their  houses,  which  were  set  on  fire  by  excited 
mobs ;  n  many  of  them  were  burnt  indiscriminately  by 
sentence  of  the  king’s  judges,  who  were  commanded  to 
deal  summarily  with  them  ;  0  but  at  Paris  and  elsewhere 
the  distinction  was  at  length  established,  that  such  of 
them  as  could  not  be  convicted  of  any  personal  share 
in  the  alleged  crimes  should  be  confined  for  life  within 
the  lazar-houses,  in  the  hope  that  by  a  separation  of 
the  sexes  their  race  might  become  extinct.? 

The  Jews  also,  who  in  the  reign  of  Lewis  had  been 
allowed  to  return  to  France,  and  had  paid  heavily  for 
the  privilege, q  were  now  persecuted.  Many  of  them 
were  burnt,  their  property  was  confiscated,  and  the  pope 
ordered  that  the  bishops  should  destroy  all  copies  of  the 
Talmud,  as  being  the  chief  support  of  their  perversity/ 
Many  Jews  threw  their  children  into  the  fire,  in  order  to 
rescue  them  from  being  forcibly  baptized.8 

Under  Philip  the  Long  the  system  of  administration 
which  had  pressed  so  heavily  on  France  in  his  father’s 
time  was  resumed.  Among  other  means  of  exaction,  he 
was  authorized  by  the  pope  to  levy  a  tenth  of  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  income  for  the  crusade ;  but  when  he  attempted  to 
collect  the  money,  the  bishops,  who  suspected  that  it  was 


n  Bern.  Guid.  165. 

0  W.  Nang,  contin.  79.  See  letters 
of  Philip  V.  and  of  Charles  IV.  in  Hist. 
Langued.,  Preuves,  p.  163.  Philip  says 
that  the  ordinary  judges  were  to  deal 
with  them,  “  ut  celerius  promptiusque 
et  commodius,  sicut  res  exigit,  fceti- 
dorum  leprosorum  superstitum  super- 
stitiosa  nequitiosa  putredine  terrae 
superficies  abluatur.” 

P  Bern.  Guid.  165  ;  Baluz.  V.  P.  A. 


i.  1 3 1.  The  next  king,  Charles  IV., 
recommended  that  those  who  had  been 
left  alive  should  be  provided  with  the 
means  of  life  by  charitable  contribu¬ 
tions.  ‘i  Sism.  ix.  400. 

r  Rayn.  1320.  23-30.  Bernard  Gui- 
donis,  as  inquisitor  of  Toulouse,  threw 
two  cartloads  of  Talmuds  into  the  fire 
on  the  29th  of  December,  1319.  Hist. 
Langued.  iv.  181. 

6  Gir.  de  Frach.  contin  >, 


90 


PASTOUREAUX. 


Book  VIII. 


intended  to  serve  the  king  in  some  design  on  the  empire,1 
refused  to  pay  until  they  should  be  assured  that  a  crusade 
was  really  intended.11  The  oppressiveness  of  the  king's 
exactions  produced  in  1320  a  new  movement  of  pastou- 
reaux,  which,  like  that  in  the  reign  of  St.  Lewis,  began 
in  the  north  of  France. x  The  leaders  in  this  movement 
were  a  priest  who  had  been  deprived  of  his  parish  for 
misconduct,  and  an  apostate  Benedictine  monk  ;  their 
followers  were  at  first  shepherds  and  swineherds — chiefly 
boys ;  and  they  set  out  as  if  for  the  Holy  Land,  marching 
along  silently,  preceded  by  a  cross,  with  staves  in  their 
hands  and  empty  wallets,  trusting  to  find  their  support 
in  alms.y  But  gradually  the  company  was  swelled  by 
persons  of  lawless  character,  and  from  begging  they  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  plunder.  Their  violence  showed  itself  in  an 
alarming  degree  at  Paris,  and  when  some  of  them  were 
imprisoned,  the  rest  broke  open  the  prisons  and  forcibly 
released  them.2  Wherever  they  went,  the  Jews  were 
especial  objects  of  their  fury.  At  Verdun,  on  the  Garonne, 
where  many  of  these  had  been  driven  to  take  refuge,  the 
pastoureaux  shut  up  more  than  500  of  them  in  the  castle, 
and  set  it  on  fire.a  At  Toulouse  they  slew  all  the  Jews 
and  plundered  their  goods,  in  defiance  of  the  magistrates 
and  of  the  king’s  officers.11  The  wave  rolled  on,  every- 


1  Olensl.  122-3. 

“  Martin,  iv.  549. 

x  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.,  i.  128;  W.  Nang, 
contin.  77. 

y  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  129, 161,  193  ;  Gir. 
Frach.  contin.  54;  W.  Nang.  cont.  77. 
Some  were  from  England.  A.  Muri- 
muth,  32. 

*  Baluz.  i.  129, 162 ;  W.  Nang.  cont. 
1.  c. 

“  It  is  said  that  the  Jews  employed 
one  of  their  number  to  cut  their  throats, 
and  that,  after  having  despatched 
nearly  500,  he  went  out  to  the  camp  of 
the  pastoureaux.  desiring  baptism  for 
himself  and  for  some  children  whom  he 


had  reserved.  After  having  reproached 
him  for  his  crime  against  his  nation, 
they  cut  him  to  pieces  ;  but  the  children 
were  spared  and  were  baptized.  Baluz. 
i.  120,  129,  161-2  ;  W.  Nang.  cont.  1.  c. 
(who  tells  a  somewhat  similar  story  of 
the  Jews  of  Vitry,  i.  79);  Gir.  Frach. 
contin.  54 ;  Hist.  Langued.  iv.  185. 

b  Baluz.  i.  194.  In  Germany  there 
was  a  gathering  of  peasants  for  the 
purpose  of  slaying  Jews  under  the  pon¬ 
tificate  of  Benedict  XII.  ;  but  it  was 
suppressed  by  the  emperor  Lewis,  and 
the  leader  (who  called  himself  king 
Arinileder,  or  Arculeder)  was  put  to 
death.  Ib.  203,  228,  231. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1316-20.  JOHN  XXII.  AND  THE  FRANCISCANS.  9  I 


where  spreading  terror,  so  that  the  inhabitants  of  the 
country  fortified  themselves  against  the  strangers,  and 
would  not  sell  them  any  provisions.0  As  they  approached 
Avignon,  the  pope  uttered  an  anathema  Ascension-day, 
asrainst  all  who  should  take  the  cross  with-  I32°* 

O 

out  his  sanction,  and  requested  the  protection  of  the 
seneschal  of  Beaucaire,  who  had  already  put  many  of 
them  to  death.d  When  they  reached  Languedoc,  the 
pastoureaux  had  numbered  40,000.  The  seneschal  shut 
them  out  of  Aigues  Mortes,  where  they  had  intended  to 
embark,  and,  enclosing  them  with  his  troops  in  the 
adjoining  country,  he  left  them  to  the  operation  of 
famine,  of  nakedness,  and  want  of  shelter,  and  of  the 
fever  generated  by  the  swamps, — occasionally  falling  on 
them  when  thus  weakened,  and  hanging  them  in  large 
numbers  on  gibbets  or  on  trees.  Thus  this  unhappy 
fanaticism  was  speedily  extinguished.® 

With  the  extreme  party  among  the  Franciscans  pope 
John  was  very  seriously  embroiled.f  The  luxury  and 
splendour  of  his  court,  the  wealth  which  he  was  visibly 
accumulating,  although  a  large  part  of  the  treasures  left 
by  his  predecessor  Clement  escaped  his  endeavours  to 
get  possession  of  itff — such  things  contrasted  violently 
with  the  severe  notions  which  this  party  held  as  to  the 
nature  and  obligation  of  evangelical  poverty.11  While  in 
other  matters  they  mostly  adhered  to  the  opinions  of 
Peter  John  of  Olivi1 — declaring  the  pope  to  be  the  mys¬ 
tical  antichrist,  the  precursor  of  the  greater  antichrist, 
his  church  to  be  the  Babylonian  harlot,  the  synagogue  of 


c  Baluz.  i.  194.  d  Rayn.  1320.  22. 

0  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  i.  130,  162-3  ;  W. 
Nang.  cont.  77  ;  Gir.  Frach.  contin. 
55,  189  ;  Hist.  Langued.  iv. 

f  Alvar.  Pelag.  de  Planctu  Eccles. 
1.  ii.  cc.  55,  seqq.,  has  much  on  this 
subject,  taking  the  pope’s  side.  Cf. 
‘Chron.  de  Gestis  contra  Fraticellos,’ 
by  a  Franciscan  named  John,  in  Baluz. 


Miscell.  iii.  206,  seqq.  (containing  many 
documents);  d’Argentre,  i.  290,  seqq. 

s  See  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  ii.  368,  seqq., 
append.  Nos.  56-7,  60-2,  etc. 

h  See  Rayn.  1226.  21,  for  the  strange 
performances  of  the  Franciscans  of  Is- 
soudun  on  St.  Nicolas’ day,  seemingly 
in  ridicule  of  the  papal  court. 

1  See  vol.  vi,  pp.  435-8. 


92 


JOHN  xxir. 


Book  VI I L 


Satan, k  and  in  some  cases  professing  to  support  their 
opinions  by  the  authority  of  new  revelations,1 — they 
denied  that  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  had  possessed 
anything  whatever ;  they  maintained  that  He  and  they 
had  only  the  use — not  the  possession  or  the  disposal — 
of  such  things  as  were  necessary  for  life,  of  their  dress, 
and  even  of  their  food  ;m  that  the  scrip  and  the  purse  of 
which  we  read  in  the  Gospels  were  allowed  only  by  way 
of  condescension  to  human  infirmity;11  that  the  use  of 
such  repositories  as  cellars  and  granaries  is  a  distrust 
of  the  Divine  providence.0  If,  it  was  argued,  the  Saviour 
had  possessed,  whereas  St.  Francis  did  not,  He  would 
not  have  been  perfect,  but  would  have  been  excelled  by 
the  founder  of  the  minorites.  As  even  the  fanaticism 
of  the  fraticelli  recoiled  from  such  a  supposition  as 
blasphemous,  it  was  concluded  that  therefore  the  Saviour 
possessed  nothing;15  and  it  was  inferred  that  He  ought 
to  be  obeyed  not  only  in  his  precepts  but  in  his  counsels.q 

In  such  opinions  John  saw  a  revolutionary  tendency 
which  threatened  the  papacy  and  the  whole  hierarchical 
system ;  and  he  condemned  them  by  several  bulls, r  in 
some  of  which  he  argued  the  question,  maintaining  that, 
in  the  case  of  such  things  as  food,  the  power  of  use 


k  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  i.  117. 

1  Rayn.  1321.  19  ;  1322.  52 ;  1331.  4, 
seqq 

1:1  Mich.  Caesen.  in  Goldast.  ii.  1350; 
G.  Vill.  ix.  155  ;  Rayn.  1322.  59,  seqq. 
John  of  Winterthur  (a  Franciscan)  says 
that  the  Dominicans  had  blasphemous 
caricatures  against  his  order  on  account 
of  the  differences  on  this  subject.  Ec- 
card.  i.  1800. 

D  Nicolas  III.  had  said,  “Sicinfirm- 
orum  personam  Christus  suscepit  in 
loculis,”  etc.,  and  the  rigid  party  made 
much  of  these  words.  Pope  John  and 
his  abettors  maintained  that  Nicolas 
ought  to  be  understood  as  speaking  of 
bona  immobilia.  See  Rayn.  1322.  65, 


seqq.  ;  1323.  63  ;  1324.  33,  seqq. 

0  Joh.  Extrav.  xiv.  col.  117;  Rayn. 
1322.  62. 

p  Mich.  Caesen.  in  Goldast.  ii.  1347. 

q  See  Wadding.  13x8.  9 ;  Dialog, 
contra  Fraticellos,  in  Baluz.  Miscell. 
ii.  595,  seqq. 

r  Extrav.  vii.  “  Sancta  Romana”  ; 
xiv.  1,  “  Quorundam  exigit” ;  ib.  3,  “  Ad 
conditorem  ”  ;  ib.  4,  “  Cum  inter  non. 
nullos  ”  ;  ib.  5,  “Quia  quorundam.” 
Cf.  the  bull  of  Clement  V.,  “  Exivi  de 
paradiso,”  on  which  see  Hefele,  v 
483.  Against  these  bulls  see  W.  Occam, 
*  Compendium  Errorum  Papae,’  in 
Goldast,  ii. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1320-2.  AND  THE  FRANCISCANS. 


93 


involves  possession  and  ownership.3  But  the  “  spirituals  '* 
met  the  pope’s  condemnation  by  denying  his  right  to 
dispense  with  their  statutes/  by  taking  their  stand  on  the 
bull  of  Nicolas  III.,  which  was  known  by  the  title  of 
Exiti?  and  by  appealing  to  a  future  pope.x  In  Langue¬ 
doc  some  convents  broke  out  into  rebellion,  and  the 
spirituals,  who  were  supported  by  the  popular  favour, 
expelled  those  who  differed  from  them.y  An  inquiry 
was  set  on  foot  by  a  commission,  of  which  Michael  of 
Cesena,  the  general  of  the  order,  was  a  member;2  and 
by  it  many  of  the  more  violent  faction  were  condemned 


either  to  the  flames  or  to 
chapter  of  the  Franciscans, 

8  Extrav.  xiv.  3,  col.  139.  Against 
this,  see  Mich.  Csesen.  in  Goldast,  ii. 
1358.  “  Unde  concludebant  multi  tales 
non  esse  in  statu  salutis,  votumque  non 
esse  sanctitatis,  sed  magis  assumptse 
sine  ratione  voluntatis.”  Gir.  Frach. 
cont.  50  ;  W.  N  ang.  cont.  74  ;  Alb. 
Mussat.  773-8. 

1  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  i.  117.  This  was 
against  the  exordium  of  one  of  John’s 
bulls,  "Ad  conditorem.”  Baluz.  Mis- 
cell.  ii.  248,  250. 

u  See  vol.  vi.  p.  435. 
x  Wadd.  1318.  2i. 
y  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  i.  m,  117. 
z  Baluz.  Miscell.  ii.  247 ;  Wadd* 
17.  11. 

a  Hist.  Langued.  iv.  182,  seqq.  ; 
Knyghton  in  Twysd.  2610 ;  Baluz. 
Miscell.  ii.  248,  271,  etc. ;  Wadd.  1318. 
25-6,  etc.  ;  Baluz.  i.  118,  598,  seqq. 
One  of  these,  Bernard  Deliciosi,  of 
Toulouse,  was  tried  in  1319  on  charges 
of  very  various  kinds,  including  heresy, 
magic,  treason,  and  contriving  to  poison 
Pope  Benedict  XI.,  etc.  He  was  said 
also  to  have  laboured  for  many  years 
to  excite  odium  against  the  inquisition, 
to  have  stirred  up  the  mob  of  Carcas¬ 
sonne  to  destroy  the  convent  of  the 
Dominican  inquisitors,  and  to  have  de¬ 
clared  before  the  king  and  other  great 


imprisonment.3  A  general 
which  was  held  at  Perugia 

persons  that  St.  Peter  or  St.  Paul  would 
be  unable  to  clear  themselves  of  the 
charge  of  heresy  if  they  were  subjected 
to  the  method  of  trial  which  was  used 
by  the  inquisition.  Bernard  was  ac¬ 
quitted  as  to  the  death  of  Pope  Bene¬ 
dict,  but  on  other  accounts  he  was  sen¬ 
tenced  to  be  imprisoned  in  chains  for 
life,  and  to  be  fed  with  the  bread  of 
affliction  and  the  water  of  affliction. 
The  judges,  in  consideration  of  his  age 
and  weakness,  were  inclined  to  mitigate 
his  sentence  as  to  the  chains  and  the 
diet ;  but  the  king’s  proctor  appealed 
against  such  lenity,  and  the  pope  or¬ 
dered  that  Bernard  should  be  stript  of 
the  Franciscan  habit,  and  forbade  all 
mitigation.  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  i.  115-16, 
341-65,  691 ;  Liber  Sententiarum,  in 
append,  to  Limborch,  268,  seqq.,  Hist. 
Langued.  iv.  179;  Hist.  Litt.  xxiv.  97. 
Eymeric  says  that  four  brothers,  who 
were  burnt  at  Marseilles,  were  revered 
by  the  party  as  martyrs  and  saints 
(283-4).  The  Meaux  chronicler  speaks 
of  1 13  persons  of  both  sexes  as  having 
been  put  to  death  in  1318  and  1330  for 
their  adherence  to  the  rigorous  idea  of 
Franciscan  poverty  (ii.  323)  ;  and  a  list 
agreeing  with  this  is  cited  by  Mosheim, 
who  supposes  that  about  2,000  suffered 
in  all  (ii.  670). 


94 


JOHN  XXII.  AND  THE  FRANCISCANS.  Book  VIII. 


in  1322,  affirmed  the  doctrine  of  evangelical  poverty, b 
and  Michael  of  Cesena,  who  presided,  was  now  with 
the  rigid  party.  The  pope  declared  the  chapter  to  be 
heretical,  and  denounced  the  Franciscans  as  hypocritical 
for  enjoying  great  wealth  under  pretext  of  the  fiction  that 
the  use  alone  was  theirs,  and  that  the  possession  belonged 
to  the  papacy.  He  renounced  the  nominal  right  on  which 
this  fiction  was  grounded;  he  forbade  the  order  to  employ 
the  name  of  the  apostolic  see  in  collecting  or  administer¬ 
ing  money, c  repealed  the  bull  of  Nicolas  III.,d  on  which 
they  relied,  and  subjected  them  to  various  disabilities.® 
The  university  of  Paris,  which  was  under  the  influence 
of  the  rival  order  of  St.  Dominic,  condemned  at  great 
length  the  extreme  doctrine  of  poverty.1  A  division  took 
place  in  the  Franciscan  order,  and  Michael  of  Cesena, 
who  had  fled  from  Avignon  in  defiance  of  the  pope’s 
orders  that  he  should  remain  there,  and  had  denied  the 
validity  of  the  deposition  which  John  had  thereupon 
pronounced  against  him,g  was  superseded  as  its  head 
by  the  election  of  Gerard  Odonis  in  June  i329-h  But 
in  consequence  of  these  differences  with  the  pope,  the 
more  rigid  Franciscans  were  driven  into  Ghibellinism  ;5 
and  while  the  learned  men  of  the  party,  such  as  the 


b  Baluz.  Misc.  5ii.  208  ;  G.  Vill.  ix. 
155;  Rayn.  1322.  54;  Wadd.  1322.  51-4  ; 
Bui.  iv.  192  seqq. 

c  Extrav.  xiv.  3  ;  Wadd.  1322.  56-61 
(who  is  strongly  against  these  proceed¬ 
ings).  d  Extrav.  xiv.  1-2. 

c  G.  Vill.  ix.  155 ;  Bern.  Guidon,  in 
Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  i.  139.  Wadding  boldly 
undertakes  to  prove  that  John  was 
nevertheless  in  accordance  with  Nico¬ 
las.  1323.  5-12.  Cf.  1324.  25. 
f  Rayn.  1323.  40,  seqq. 
e  Wadd.  1327.  7 ;  1328.  12-21 ;  Mar- 
tene,  Thes.  ii.  749,  seqq. ;  Baluz.  Misc. 
iii.  243,  seqq.,  303,  seqq.,  341,  etc. 

*>  lb.  314;  Wadi.  1329.  7;  Annal. 
Qjesen.  in  Murat,  xiv.  1247-51.  Wil¬ 


liam  of  Ockham’s  ‘Opus  Nonaginta 
Dierum,’  is  especially  directed  against 
the  bull  Quiavir reprobus(y!)3\wz.  Misc. 
iii.  323,  seqq.),  by  which  the  pope  con¬ 
demned  Michael.  Michael’s  own  tract. 
‘Contra  Errores  Joh.  XXI.  Papa:/ 
written  after  his  deposition,  is  in  the 
same  volume.  Also  his  letter  to  the 
emperor  and  to  the  German  princes. 
An  acknowledgment  of  his  faults,  in 
the  form  of  a  paraphrase  on  Psalm  li. , 
is  said  to  have  been  written  by  him 
when  “struggling with  death,”  in  1343, 
and  is  printed  in  Murat.  III.  ii.  513, 
seqq. 

1  Joh.  Vitodur.  1801. 


95 


Chav.  II.  a.d.  1314-29.  ELECTION  OF  EMPEROR. 


famous  schoolman  William  of  Ockham,  employed  them¬ 
selves  in  inquiries  which  tended  to  the  overthrow  of  the 
papal  pretensions, k  the  results  of  such  inquiries  were 
spread  everywhere  by  the  itinerant  friars,  who  familiarized 
the  people,  down  even  to  the  lowest  classes,  with  the 
notion  that  the  pope  and  the  Roman  church  were  the 
mystical  antichrist  and  Babylon  of  Scripture.1  And 
thus  that  order  on  which  the  popes  had  relied  as  their 
surest  support  and  instrument  was  turned  in  great  part 
into  dangerous  opposition  to  their  interest. 

In  order  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  death  of 
Henry  VII.,  Frederick  and  Leopold  of  Austria,  the  sons 
of  his  predecessor  Albert,  were  brought  forward  ;  but  they 
were  opposed  by  the  late  emperor’s  partisans,  of  whom 
the  archbishop  of  Mentz,  Peter  Aichspalter,  was  the 
leader.™  The  candidate  of  this  party  was  Lewis  of 
Bavaria,  a  grandson  of  Rudolf  of  Hapsburg  through 
female  descent,  and  therefore  a  cousin  of  the  Austrian 
princes  whom  he  was  reluctantly  persuaded  to  oppose.11 
On  the  19th  of  October  1314  Frederick  was  elected  by 
one  party,  and  on  the  following  day  Lewis  was  chosen  by 
the  other.  Both  elections  took  place  in  the  suburbs  of 
Frankfort ;  but  Lewis,  in  addition  to  being  supported  by 
three  unquestionable  votes,  while  Frederick  had  only  two,0 
had  the  advantage  of  being  able  to  gain  admission  into 
the  city,  where  he  was  raised  aloft  on  the  high  altar  of 
the  great  church,  and  was  afterwards  displayed  to  the 
people  assembled  in  the  surrounding  place. p  As  the 


k  See  below,  p.  102.  William  also 
wrote  against  John  as  to  the  question  of 
poverty,  and  charged  him  with  thirty- 
two  errors  under  this  head.  See 
Goldast.  ii.  965-70. 

1  A  friar  who  was  brought  before  the 
pope  in  1329  told  him  to  his  face  that 
he  was  a  heretic  and  not  pope.  W. 
Nang.  cont.  92. 

m  Ferr.  Vicent.  1170.  See  Olensl. 


75-8,  and  the  documents  in  his  appen¬ 
dix,  56,  seqq. 

n  Monach.  Fiirstenfeld.  in  Bohmer, 
i.  47  ;  Olensl.  80-1. 

0  There  were,  however,  complaints 
of  unfairness  on  the  other  side.  See 
Henr.  Hervord.  230-1. 

p  Gesta  Trevir.  in  Martene,  Coll. 
Ampl.  iv.  404  ;  Olensl.  83-7. 


Book  VIII. 


96 


RIVAL  EMPERORS. 


archbishop  of  Cologne,  when  asked  to  crown  him  accord- 
^  ing  to  custom  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  pretended 
to  a  right  of  investigating  the  election,  the 
coronation  was  performed  there  by  the  archbishop  of 
Mentz  ;  and  on  the  preceding  day  the  archbishop  of 
Cologne  had  crowned  Frederick  at  Bonn/  The  papacy 
was  then  vacant  by  the  death  of  Clement  V.,  and  each 
party  drew  up  a  statement  of  its  case,  to  be  submitted  to 
the  future  pope,  with  a  request  that  he  would  confirm  the 
election  of  its  candidate/  Clement,  after  the  death  ot 
Henry,  had  declared  the  imperial  ban  which  had  been 
pronounced  against  Robert  of  Naples  to  be  null,s  had 
claimed  for  himself — by  ancient  right,  as  he  pretended 
— the  administration  of  the  empire  in  Italy,  and  on  the 
strength  of  this  novel  claim  had  appointed  Robert  as 
vicar  over  the  imperial  territories  in  that  country/  By 
John  this  pretension  was  carried  yet  further."  He  issued 
a  bull,  declaring  that  all  authority  which  had  been  held 
in  Italy  under  grants  of  the  late  emperor  was  at  an  end, 
and  forbidding  the  officials  to  continue  the  exercise  of 


Olensl.  88-9.  See  the  archbishop 
of  Cologne’s  letters,  ib.  Anhang,  72-6. 
He  relies  on  a  papal  privilege,  by  which 
the  archbishops  of  Cologne  were  autho¬ 
rized  to  crown  anywhere  within  their 
diocese  or  province  (p.  73).  Matthew  of 
Neuburg  says  that  Lewis  was  crowned 
“  in  loco  quo  debuit,  sed  non  a  quo  de- 
buit,”  and  Frederick,  “a  quo  debuit, 
sed  non  in  loco  in  quo  debuit”  (Urstis. 
ii.  1 19).  There  was  a  dispute  whether, 
in  the  absence  of  the  archbishop  of 
Cologne,  the  coronation  of  a  king  of 
the  Romans  belonged  to  Mentz  or  to 
Treves.  Olensl.  89  and  Anh.  77. 

r  G.  Vill.  ix.  66 ;  Gir.  Frach.  contin. 
49 ;  W.  Nang.  cont.  69,  73 ;  Olensl. 
Anh.  63-9 ;  Schmidt,  iii.  508-14. 
Lewis  had  to  pay  heavily  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  electors  ;  thus,  he  gave  up 
the  “  right  of  first  prayers  ”  (see  vol.  vi. 
p.  412)  within  the  diocese  of  Mentz  to 


the  archbishop  (Schmidt,  iii.  510),  and 
made  large  concessions  to  the  late  em¬ 
peror’s  son,  John,  king  of  Bohemia 
(Palacky,  II.  ii.  108),  as  well  as  to  the 
king’s  uncle,  archbishop  Baldwin  of 
Tre  ves.  Gesta  Trev.  404  ;  Olensl.  83, 
and  Anh.  76. 

8  Clementin.  II.  xi.  2. 

1  Ib. ;  Rayn.  1314.  2;  Olensl.  Urk. 
16;  Murat.  Annal.  i.  113.  The  only 
instance  at  all  parallel  was  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  Charles  of  Anjou  as  vicar  of 
Tuscany  by  Clement  IV.  (vol.  vi.  p. 
246).  See  Bollinger,  ii.  256.  This  is 
alleged  by  Clement  himself.  Olensl. 

•  Urk.  95. 

u  “Quod  licet  de  jure  sit  liquidum, 
et  ab  olim  fuerit  inconcusse  servatum.” 
(Extrav.  v.)  As  to  Clement  and  John, 
see  the  *  Defensor  Pads,’  in  Goldast.  ii. 
1.  ii.  c.  24,  p.  279 ;  c.  25,  p.  282. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1314-22. 


JOHN  XXII. 


97 


such  authority  without  fresh  commissions  from  himself  ;x 
he  even  attempted  to  set  up  a  similar  pretension  to  a 
vicariate  in  Germany  during  the  vacancy  of  the  imperial 
throne/  and  refused  to  confirm  German  bishops  in  their 
sees  unless  on  the  condition  of  their  owning  neither  of  the 
elect  as  king  until  the  apostolic  see  should  have  decided 
between  the  rivals.2  In  Italy  the  chiefs  of  the  Ghibelline 
party  were  not  disposed  to  obey  the  new  claim  ;  the  most 
conspicuous  among  them,  Matthew  Visconti,  although 
he  laid  down  the  title  of  imperial  vicar,  got  himself 
chosen  by  the  Milanese  as  their  captain-general,  and 
thus  founded  a  hereditary  dominion  which  afterwards 
became  the  dukedom  of  Milan.a  In  consequence  of  this 
John  thundered  against  him  charges  of  heresy  and  other 
offences,  curses,  and  interdicts,  and  proclaimed  a  crusade 
with  the  full  crusading  indulgences  ; b  yet  Visconti  main¬ 
tained  his  power  against  all  the  forces  which  the  pope 
could  raise  up  against  him,  until  a  short  time  before  his 
death,  when  he  transferred  it  to  his  son  John  Galeazzo, 

and  gave  up  his  remaining  days  to  devout  _ 

•  G  t  •  i  t  ,  June  1322. 

preparation  for  his  end.c  It  was,  however, 

found  necessary  to  conceal  the  place  of  his  burial,  lest 

the  papal  vengeance  should  be  wreaked  on  his  body  as 

that  of  one  who  had  died  under  excommunication/ 


*  Extrav.  1.  c.  p.  61 ;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 

26. 

y  Olensl.  X02 ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  67 ; 
Planck,  v.  217.  z  Olensl.  103. 

a  Rayn.  1320.  12  ;  Schmidt,  iii.  521- 
2  ;  Sism.  Rep.  Ital.  iii.  358,  360. 

b  Rayn.  1320. 16,  seqq. ;  1322,  6,  seqq. ; 
Chron.  Astense,  c.  105  (Murat,  xi.). 

c  He  was  more  than  ninety  years  old. 
Rayn.  1322.  10. 

d  G.  Vill.  ix.  142-3,  154 ;  Gir.  Frach. 
contin.  48-9  ;  Mansi,  xxv.  689,  seqq.  ; 
Chron.  Ast.  c.  107 ;  Sism.  Rep.  I.  t. 
iii.  361,  374.  The  continuer  of  William 
of  Nangis  gives  a  terrible  account  of 
the  offences  by  which  the  Visconti 

VOL.  VII. 


had  incurred  the  reproach  of  heres)r. 
Matthew’s  grandfather,  grandmother, 
and  other  relatives  had  been  burnt  as 
heretics,  and  he  himself  was  supposed 
to  deny,  or  at  least  to  question,  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  (73).  On  the 
other  hand,  Marsilius  of  Padua  styles 
him  “generosum,  nobilem  et  illustrem 
virum  catholicum,  morum  honestate  et 
gravitate  inter  cseteros  Italicos  singu- 
larem,  bonae  recordationis,”  and  says 
that  the  pope  unjustly  cursed  him,  but 
that  no  one  cared  for  the  sentence 
(Goldast.  ii.  286).  For  John’s  denun 
ciations  of  his  memory,  while  charging 
Galeazzo  with  oppression  of  the  church, 

7 


98 


JOHN  XXII.  ON  THE 


Look  VIII. 


Robert  of  Naples,  by  spending  some  years  in  Provence, 
gained  an  entire  ascendency  over  his  old  chancellor,  the 
pope,  which  he  intended  to  employ  for  the  subjugation  of 
Italy  ;e  but  throughout  the  peninsula  the  dread  of  falling 
under  his  power  contributed  strongly  to  foster  an  antipapal 
spirit.  Almost  all  the  cities  had  now  parted  with  their 
republican  liberties,  and  had  fallen  under  the  dominion 
of  lords,  of  whom  many  were  detestable  tyrants,  yet  at 
whose  courts  literature  and  the  arts,  which  were  now 
bursting  into  splendour,  found  an  enlightened  and  a 
munificent  patronage. f  Thus  Dante’s  last  years  were 
spent  at  the  court  of  Ravenna,  under  the  protection  of 
Guy  of  Polenta,  nephew  of  that  Francesca  on  whose 
name  the  poet  has  bestowed  a  mournful  immortality.6 

In  the  dissensions  of  Germany  John  seemed  for  a  time 
to  take  no  side,  giving  the  title  of  king  of  the  Romans 
alike  to  each  of  the  rival  claimants  of  the  crown, h  while 
he  contented  himself  with  desiring  them  to  settle  their 
quarrel  and  to  report  the  result  to  him.  But  this 
quiescence  did  not  arise  from  indifference ;  for  no  pope 
ever  entered  into  political  strife  more  keenly  than  John, 
and  the  part  which  he  at  length  took  was  not  provoked, 
as  the  action  of  popes  in  other  cases  had  been,  either  by 
any  personal  vices  in  the  emperor,  or  by  aggressions  on 
the  church.  In  his  contest  with  Lewis  of  Bavaria,  John’s 
single  motive  was  a  desire  to  assert  for  his  see  a  power 
over  the  empire. i  He  is  said  to  have  avowed  the 
principle  that  “  when  kings  and  princes  quarrel,  then  the 
pope  is  truly  pope.”  k  So  long,  therefore,  as  Lewis  and 
the  Austrian  princes  were  wearing  each  other  out  in 


and  proclaiming  a  crusade  against  him, 
see  Rayn.  1324.  7,  scqq. 

.  e  Joh.  S.  Viet,  in  Bouq.  xxi.  ;  W. 
Nang,  contin.  76-7  ;  Sism.  R.  1.  iv. 
3S  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  113. 
f  Tiraboschi,  v.  15,  seqq. 

«  Sism.  R.  I.  iii.  3-5-3,  334,  345-6, 


353.  Dante  died  in  1321,  aged  56. 
G.  Vill.  ix.  133-4. 
h  Henr.  Hervord.  231. 

'  W.  Nang,  contin.  73;  SchrOckh, 
xxxi.  70;  Planck,  v.  214  ;  Milm.  v.  232. 

k  Ludov.  ap.  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  ii.  479 ; 
or  Olcnsl.  Urk.  p.  117. 


Oiap.  II.  a.d.  1314-23.  QUESTION  OF  THE  EMPIRE. 


99 


indecisive  struggles,  the  pope  looked  on  with  calmness. 
But  when  the  great  battle  of  Miihldorf,  on  Michaelmas- 
eve  1322,  had  given  victory  to  Lewis,  and  had  thrown 
into  his  hands  Frederick  of  Austria  and  his  brother  Henry 
as  prisoners,1  John  was  driven  from  his  policy  of  inaction, 
and  put  forth  a  manifesto,  in  which  his  claims  were 
strongly  asserted.  The  pope  lays  down 
that,  as  the  election  to  the  empire  had  been  ct-  Ij23’ 
doubtful,  it  ought  to  be  referred  to  him  for  judgment ;  he 
desires  Lewis  to  cease  within  three  months  from  using 
the  title  or  the  authority  of  the  Roman  kingdom  or 
empire,  and  to  recall,  in  so  far  as  might  be  possible,  the 
acts  which  he  had  done  as  king.  He  forbids  all  obedi¬ 
ence  to  Lewis,  and  declares  engagements  to  him  as  king 
elect  to  be  null.m  The  document  was  not  sent  to  Lewis, 
as  the  pope  considered  the  display  of  it  on  the  doors  of 
the  cathedral  at  Avignon  to  be  a  sufficient  publication." 
Lewis,  on  being  made  acquainted  with  it,  sent  forth  a 
protest,  which  was  read  in  the  presence  of  a  large 
assembly  at  Nuremberg.  With  much  profession  of  vene¬ 
ration  for  the  Roman  church,  he  denounces 
the  injustice  and  the  enmity  which  he  had 
experienced  at  the  pope’s  hands.  He  maintains  that  one 
who  had  been  rightfully  chosen  by  the  electors,  or  by  a 
majority  of  them,  and  who  had  been  duly  crowned,  had 
always  been  acknowledged  as  king  of  the  Romans  ;  and 
he  complains  that  he  himself,  after  having  held  that  dignity 
for  ten  years,  should  now  find  his  title  questioned  by  the 
pope,  with  a  disregard  of  all  the  usual  forms  of  justice. 
He  repels  the  charge  of  favouring  heresy,  which  the  pope 
had  brought  against  him  on  account  of  his  connexion 
with  Galeazzo  Visconti  and  others,  and  even  retorts  on 


Dec.  16. 


1  G.  Vill.  ix.  173  ;  W.  Nang.  cont. 
82  ;  Mon.  Fiirstenf.  in  Bohmer,  i.  61  ; 
Matth.  Neoburg.  122  ;  Olensl.  112-13  ; 
Palacky,  II.  ii.  138. 


“  Olensl.  Urkunden,  No.  30. 
n  lb.  p.  84  ;  G.  Vill.  ix.  26.  Lewis 
denies  the  sufficiency.  Olensl.  Ur¬ 
kunden,  p.  196. 


100 


LEWIS  OF  BAVARIA 


Book  VIII. 


John  himself  for  neglecting  the  accusations  brought 
against  the  Franciscans,  that  they  revealed  the  secrets  of 
the  confessional,  and  so  deterred  Christian  people  from 
confession,  to  the  great  danger  of  their  souls.  He  con¬ 
cludes  by  appealing  to  a  general  council,0  and  he  also 
sent  envoys  to  the  papal  court,  with  a  request  that  the 
time  allowed  him  for  defending  himself  might  be  ex¬ 
tended.?  To  this  the  pope  replied  that  the 
an‘  I9>  time  was  not  allowed  for  defence,  but  for  sub¬ 
mission.  He  consented,  however,  to  grant  two  months 
more;q  and  as  within  that  period  Lewis  did  not  submit, 
he  pronounced  him  excommunicate,  forbade 

M q yph  o  t  A 

all  acknowledgment  of  him  as  king  of  the 
Romans,  and  annulled  all  engagements  to  him  as  such, 
while  he  yet  suspended  for  three  months  the  further 
penalties  which  had  been  threatened.1- 

Lewis  again  appealed  to  a  general  council,  and  to  a 
true  and  lawful  future  pope.  He  again  denied  the  charge 
of  favouring  heresy,  and  protested  against  the  disregard 
of  the  rules  of  justice  which  had  been  shown  in  John’s 
proceedings  against  him.  The  liberties  of  the  church, 
he  says,  were  the  gift  of  Constantine  to  pope  Sylvester 
He  charges  John  with  invading  the  rights  of  the  empire 
and  of  the  German  electors,5  and  taxes  him  with  cruelty 
and  perfidy  towards  the  imperialists  of  Italy,  with  having 
stirred  up  rebellion  in  Germany,  with  profanation  of  the 
sacraments  and  contempt  of  the  canons,  and  with  having 
prevented  the  deliverance  of  the  Holy  Land  by  detaining 
the  money  collected  for  that  purpose.  And  whereas  in 
a  former  document  he  had  blamed  him  for  partiality  to 
the  Franciscans,  he  now  accuses  him  of  heresy  and  pro¬ 
fanity  in  endeavouring  to  blacken  that  order  by  asserting 
that  the  Saviour  and  His  apostles  possessed  goods  in 

0  Olensl.  Urk.  No.  37.  p  lb.  p.  93.  *  Against  this  John  addressed  a  letter 

1  lb.  No.  38.  r  lb.  No.  39.  to  the  electors.  Ib.  No.  40. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1324. 


AND  JOHN  XXII. 


IOI 


common.1  John,  finding  his  opponent  still  contumacious, 
issued  on  the  nth  of  July  his  “  fourth  process,”  by  which 
Lewis  was  pronounced  to  be  deprived  of  all  that  he  might 
claim  in  right  of  his  election,  while  his  excommunication 
was  renewed,  all  who  had  abetted  him  were  placed  under 
ban  or  interdict,  and  he  was  cited  to  appear,  either  in 
person  or  by  proxy,  before  the  pope  at  Avignon  on  the 
jst  of  October.11  The  archbishops  of  Sens,  of  Canterbury 
and  York,  of  Magdeburg  and  of  Capua,  were  charged 
with  the  proclamation  of  this  sentence  in  their  respective 
countries. 

In  these  proceedings  the  pope  did  not  meet  with  the 
general  acquiescence  and  support  which  he  probably 
expected.  Electors  and  other  great  personages — even 
Leopold  of  Austria — began  to  take  alarm  at  the  ex¬ 
travagance  of  the  papal  pretensions. x  At  Paris  and  at 
Bologna  doctors  of  both  canon  and  civil  law  gave  opinions 
condemnatory  of  his  actsA  In  Germany  the  sentences 
against  Lewis  were  not  published  by  any  prelates  except 
such  as  had  before  been  his  enemies,2  and  at  Basel  a 
clerk  who  ventured  to  proclaim  them  was  thrown  into 
the  Rhine.a  Some  Dominicans  in  German  cities,  who 
adhered  to  the  pope,  found  themselves  deprived  of  the 
alms  on  which  they  had  relied  for  a  maintenance,  and 
were  compelled  to  leave  the  country.b  The  canons  of 
Freising  refused  to  receive  a  bishop  who  had  been 
nominated  by  the  pope.c  Respect  for  ecclesiastical 
sentences  had  died  out,  unless  in  cases  where  the  justice 


1  Olensl.  Urkunden,  No.  43,  and 
more  fully  in  Baluze,  V.  P.  A.  ii.  478, 
seqq. ;  W.  Nang.  cont.  75.  The  date  is 
Sachsenhausen,  on  the  22nd  of  some 
month  ;  but  the  month  is  not  named. 
Olenslager  refers  it  to  April  or  May, 
1324,  and  remarks  that  the  hand  of  a 
Franciscan  may  probably  be  traced  in 
it.  140. 

u  Olensl.  Urk.  No.  42. 


x  lb.  p.  145. 

y  See  extracts  in  Gieseler,  II.  iii.  34. 
2  Planck,  v.  234  ;  Giesel.  II.  ii.  49. 

•  Joh.  Vitodur  in  Eccard,  i.  1804. 

b  Schrockh,  xxxi.  84.  On  the  oppo¬ 
sition  of  Dominicans  and  Franciscans 
as  to  the  imperial  question,  see  Andr. 
Ratisbon.  in  Eccard.  i.  2103. 

*  Olensl.  44. 


102 


LEWIS  IV.  AND  JOHN  XXII. 


Book  VIII. 


of  them  was  clear  ;  and  the  charges  to  avoid  the  emperor 
as  an  excommunicate  person  were  unheeded.*1 

Lewis  was  aided  in  his  struggle  by  men  of  letters, 
whom  the  exaggerated  pretensions  of  the  papacy  had 
provoked  to  follow  in  the  line  opened  by  Dante’s  treatise 
“  Of  Monarchy,”  and  to  inquire  into  the  foundations  of 
the  ecclesiastical  power  with  a  freedom  of  which  there 
had  as  yet  been  no  example.6  The  jurists  were,  as  of 
old,  on  the  imperial  side,  and  maintained  the  emperor’s 
entire  independence  of  the  pope  ;  even  those  who  were 
hindered  by  circumstances  from  taking  a  declared  part — 
as  the  lawyers  of  Bologna,  who  were  subject  to  the  pope’s 
temporal  rule — allowed  their  imperialist  principles  to  be 
seen.1  And  in  the  “  spiritual  ”  party  among  the  Francis¬ 
cans,  who  were  already  embroiled  with  John  on  the 
question  of  evangelical  poverty,  and  whose  rigid  opinions 
on  that  subject  accorded  with  the  emperor’s  desire  to 
humble  the  secular  greatness  of  the  papacy,5  Lewis  found 
a  new  and  important  class  of  allies. 

Of  these  Franciscans  the  most  famous  was  the  English¬ 
man  William  of  Ockham,  so  called  from  his  native  place 
in  the  county  of  Surrey,  who,  according  to  the  custom  of 
the  schools,  was  distinguished  by  the  titles  of  “Singular 
and  invincible  Doctor,”  and  “Venerable  Inceptor.11 
William  had  studied  at  Paris  under  Duns  Scotus,  of 
whose  system  he  afterwards  became  a  conspicuous  op¬ 
ponent,  and  he  had  taught  both  there  and  at  Bologna.* 
lie  had  revived  the  almost  extinct  philosophy  of  the 
nominalists,  which  his  followers  maintained  against 
the  realism  of  the  Scotists  with  such  zeal  that  their  dis¬ 
putes  often  ran  into  violent  affrays.  In  the  contest 
between  Philip  the  Fair  and  pope  Boniface  he  had  written 

a  Dollingcr,  ii.  258.  of  Sassoferrato,  Albert  of  Rosate,  etc., 

e  Giannone,  iv.  58.  See  Dollinger,  II.  ii.  31-4.  e  Gregorov,  vi.  119. 

ii.  259.  h  Giesel.  II.  iii.  234. 

f  See  Gieseler’s  extracts  from  Bartolo  Schrockh,  xxx.  395. 


Chap.  II. 


WILLIAM  OF  OCKIIAM. 


IO3 


a  treatise  on  the  side  of  royalty  ,k  and,  as  a  provincial  of 
his  order,  he  had  taken  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  synod 
of  Perugia,  which  asserted  opinions  contrary  to  those  ot 
pope  John  on  the  question  of  evangelical  poverty.1  A 
papal  sentence  drove  him  from  Bologna ;  and,  like  others 
of  his  order,111  he  took  refuge  with  Lewis,  to  whom  he  is 
reported  to  have  sqid,  “  Defend  me  with  the  sword,  and 
I  will  defend  you  with  the  word.’’11 

Ockham’s  chief  contribution  to  the  controversy,  a 
“  Dialogue”  between  a  master  and  a  disciple,  is  (although 
incomplete0)  of  enormous  length, p  while  it  is  also  repul¬ 
sive  from  its  difficulty,  and  is  written  with  a  scholastic 
intricacy  which  might  often  lead  any  but  a  very  careful 
reader  to  confound  the  author’s  opinions  with  those  which 
he  intends  to  refute.  He  professes,  indeed,  to  give 
impartially  the  arguments  for  the  opposite  sides  of  each 
question  ;  but  the  greater  weight  of  argument  is  always 
laid  on  that  side  which  the  author  himself  espoused/1 
After  discussing  the  nature  of  heresy,  he  decides  that  not 
only  the  pope,  but  the  Roman  church,  a  general  council, 
the  whole  body  of  clergy — nay,  all  Christians — may  err 
from  the  faith/  He  holds  that  general  councils  may  be 
summoned  without  the  pope’s  consent/  He  attacks 
the  papal  pretensions  as  to  temporal  dominion  and  to 
‘•'plenitude  of  power,”1  and  discusses  questions  as  to  the 


k  *  Disputatio  Clerici  et  Militis,’  in 
Goldast,  i.  13-18. 

.  1  See  as  to  this  subject  his  ‘  Octo 
Qusestiones,’  in  Goldast,  ix.  p.  3S7  ; 
and  his  ‘  Defensorium,’  in  Crown’s 
“Fasciculus,”  ii.  439,  seqq. 
m  W.  Nang.  cont.  88. 
n  Trithem.  de  Script.  Eccles.,  p 
313  ;  Aventin.  609. 

0  See  Goldast,  ii.  957. 

P  It  is  in  vol.  ii.  of  Goldast,  *  De 
Monarchia,’  and,  if  printed  like  the 
text  of  this  book,  would  fill  about  2,200 
pages,  while  the  other  antipapal  writ¬ 
ings  of  Ockham  in  the  same  volume 


would  be  equal  to  nearly  a  third  of  that 
quantity.  I  do  not  pretend  to  more 
than  such  an  acquaintance  with  it  as 
may  be  gained  by  reading  the  argu¬ 
ments  of  the  chapters  (in  itself  no  small 
labour),  and  occasionally  dipping  into 
the  text.  A  portion  of  the  book,  at 
least,  in  which  pope  John’s  errors  are 
discussed,  and  in  which  the  form  of 
dialogue  is  discarded  (p.  740,  seqq.), 
was  written  under  Benedict  XII. 

See  Neand.  ix.  55. 
r  P.  I.  11.  iv.-v. 

*  lb.  vi.  84. 

P.  III.  (See  vol.  vi.  p.  407.) 


104 


WILLIAM  OF  OCKHAM. 


Book  VIII. 


form  of  civil  government.  He  holds  that  general  councils 
have  only  a  general  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  are 
not  infallible  as  to  matters  of  detail;11  that  our  Lord’s 
promises  to  St.  Peter  were  given  for  the  apostle  himself 
alone.*  In  another  division  of  the  work,  he  denies  that 
the  empire  is  in  the  pope’s  disposal,  and  maintains  that 
the  gift  of  it  may  not  be  transferred  to  the  pope,  but 
belongs  to  the  Roman  people  ;y  that  the  emperor  is  not 
dependent  on  the  pope,  but  has  the  right  of  choosing 
him  ; z  and  that  in  coactive  power  the  pope  is  inferior 
to  the  emperor.a  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  such  a 
work  as  this  “  Dialogue  ”  can  ever  have  found  many 
readers ;  but  the  anti-hierarchical  opinions  which  were 
embodied  in  it  were  spread  in  all  directions,  and  made 
their  way  to  all  classes,  through  the  agency  of  the  itinerant 
friars.b 

On  the  same  side  wrote  John,  who  takes  his  name  from 
his  native  village,  Jandun,  in  Champagne,0  and  Marsilius 
Raimondini,  of  Padua,  a  physician,  who  had  also  studied 
law  at  Orleans.*1  These  two  are  supposed  to  have  shared  e 
in  the  authorship  of  the  “  Defensor  Pacis  ” — a  treatise  of 
which  the  title  was  intended  as  a  sarcasm  on  the  pope 


n  Pp.  822-5. 

*  p.  850. 

y  Pp.  901,  seqq. 

*  Pp.  902-30. 

*  P.  956.  The  relations  of  papal  and 
secular  power  are  also  discussed  in 
Ockham’s  ‘  Opusculum  Octo  Quaes- 
tionum,’  etc. 

b  William  of  Ockham  is  generally 
supposed  to  have  died  at  Munich  in 
1343  or  1347  ;  but  Wadding,  who  de¬ 
fends  his  orthodoxy  against  Bzovius, 
says  that  he  died  at  Capua  in  1350, 
penitent  lor  his  antipapalism  (1347.  19, 
seqq.).  John  of  Trittenheim  mentions 
a  story  that  he  repented  and  was  ab¬ 
solved  beiore  his  death,  but  seems  to 
disbelieve  it.  Chron.  Hirsaug.  p.  215. 
C£  Rayn.  1349.  15-16;  Bui.  iv.  317; 


Schrockh,  xxx.  396. 

e  See,  e.g.,  his  tract  ‘  De  Nullitate 
Processuum  Fapae  Johannis  contra  Lu- 
dovicum  Imperatorem  pro  superiori- 
tate  Imperatoris  in  Temporalibus,'  in 
Goldast,  1.  18-21.  Instead  of  de  J'an- 
du>io  he  is  sometimes  wrongly  styled 
de  Ganaavo  (i.e.  of  Ghent). 

d  Gir.  de  Frach.  contin.  68.  “Phi¬ 
losophise  gnarus  et  ore  disertus”  (Alb. 
Mussat.  773;  cf.  Oler.sl.  136;  Schrockh, 
xxxi.  96).  The  continuer  of  William 
of  Nangis  describes  John  and  Mar¬ 
silius  as  “duo  gemmina  viperarum,” 
breaking  forth  from  the  university  of 
Paris(75).  Muratori  styles  them  “due 
dotti  ribaldi.”  Ann.  VIII.  i.  188. 
e  Gicsel.  II.  iii.  35. 


Chap.  II. 


THE  “DEFENSOR  PACIS.”  105 


for  fomenting  war  instead  ot  acting,  as  became  his  office, 
for  the  maintenance  of  peace.f  Passing  beyond  the 
technicalities  on  which  the  jurists  had  rested  their  asser¬ 
tion  of  the  imperial  prerogative,  the  authors  inquire  into 
the  origin  of  civil  government,  founding  their  theory  on 
Aristotle’s  “  Politics. ”g  It  is  laid  down  that  there  ought 
to  be  no  power  uncontrolled  by  law  ; h  that  election  is  to 
be  preferred  to  hereditary  succession  p  that  the  pope, 
according  to  ancient  testimony  as  well  as  to  Scripture, 
has  no  coactive  sovereignty  or  jurisdiction,  but  ought  to 
be  subject  to  earthly  powers,  after  the  Saviour’s  own 
example. k  As  to  the  power  of  the  keys,  it  is  said  that 
God  alone  can  remit  sin,  with  or  without  the  agency  ot 
the  priest,  forasmuch  as  He  alone  can  know  in  what 
cases  sin  ought  to  be  remitted  or  retained ;  that  the 
priest’s  absolution  relates  only  to  the  communion  of  the 
church  on  earth ;  that  he  is  as  the  keeper  of  a  prison, 
who,  by  releasing  a  prisoner,  does  not  free  him  from  guilt 
or  from  civil  punishment.1  The  identity  of  the  orders 
of  bishop  and  presbyter  is  maintained,  and,  in  quoting 
the  well-known  words  of  St.  Jerome,  who  speaks  of 
“ordination  ”  as  the  only  function  by  which  bishops  are 
distinguished  from  presbyters,™  the  writers  interpret  the 
term  as  meaning  administrative  power.11  They  maintain 
the  equality  of  all  the  apostles,  and  deny  that  the  Roman 
bishops  derive  from  St.  Peter  any  superiority  over 
others.0  They  trace  the  rise  of  the  papal  power  to  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  Rome.p  The  final  decision  of 
ecclesiastical  questions  is  ascribed  to  general  councils, 
which  must,  it  is  said,  be  summoned  by  the  emperor; 


f  Milm.  v.  297.  The  ‘Defensor’  is 
n  Goldast,  ii.  154-312. 
e  See  Neand.  ix.  36. 
h  i.  11.  1  i.  16. 

k  ii.  3-5-  1  ii.  6. 

m  “  Quid  enim  facit  excepta  ordina- 
tione  episcopus,  quod  presbyter  non 


faciat?”  Ep.  146,  Migne,  Patrol.  Lat. 
xxii.  1194.  Cf.  Joh.  Breviscox.  in 
Gerson,  i.  867 ;  Gerson,  ii.  230. 

n  ‘  Potestatem  iconomicara,'  ii.  15, 
p.  240.  0  ii.  16. 

P  ii.  18. 


106  ANTIPAPAL  AND  Book  VIII. 

and  as  an  instance  of  the  unfitness  of  popes,  who  may 
possibly  be  heretical,  to  interpret  doubtful  points,  they 
mention  the  reigning  pope’s  opinions  on  the  subject  of 
evangelical  poverty/  The  precedence  of  one  church 
over  others  is  declared  to  be  a  subject  for  general  coun¬ 
cils  to  settle/  The  popes  are  denounced  for  having 
assumed  an  unfounded  “  plenitude  of  power”  ;  for  having 
confined  to  the  clergy  the  privilege  of  electing  bishops, 
which  ought  to  belong  to  all  the  faithful ;  for  having 
further  narrowed  it  by  excluding  the  priests  of  the  diocese 
from  a  share,  and  restricting  the  election  to  the  canons, 
who  are  described  as  rarely  in  priestly  orders,  and  as  ill 
qualified  for  such  a  trust  ;s  and,  finally,  for  having  extin¬ 
guished  the  right  of  election,  by  reserving  all  questions 
on  such  matters  to  themselves.1  It  is  maintained  that 
the  choice  of  a  pope  belongs  to  the  people  and  to  the 
emperor;  and  that  those  who  elect  are  also  entitled,  on 
sufficient  cause,  to  depose.11  The  usurpations  of  the 
popes  on  the  imperial  power  (which  are  illustrated  by  the 
fable  of  the  snake  warmed  in  the  husbandman’s  bosom)* 
— their  abuse  of  indulgences  as  encouragements  to  war 
against  Christian  princes  y — their  attempts  to  prevent  the 
election  of  an  emperor,  in  order  that  they  themselves 
might  claim  power  during  the  vacancy;2  the  injustice, 
and  consequent  invalidity,  of  their  sentences,11  the  iniquity 
of  John’s  behaviour  towards  Lewis,  the  hostility  of  the 
papal  pretensions  to  all  secular  government,15  the  great 
calamities  and  injury  to  religion  occasioned  by  the  pope’s 
proceedings0 — are  strongly  denounced.  The  idea  of 
the  necessity  of  one  earthly  head  for  the  church,  the 
Roman  bishop’s  claim  to  judicial  power,  his  pretensions 

<1  ii.  18,  20,  2r  ;  cf.  13-14.  r  ii.  22.  dignities,  and  that  they  promote  dissi- 
*  “  Inquorundam  imperitorum  et  ex-  pated  and  ignorant  young  men  to  the 
sortium  legis  divinae  juvenes  (?),  quos  cardinalate.  Ib. 
canonicos  vocant.”  u  ii.  25.  x  P.  283.  y  P.  285. 

1  ii.  24.  It  is  also  said  that  they  *  ii.  26.  *  P.  256.  b  Pp.  284-5. 

prefer  lawyers  to  theologians  lor  such  c  P.  287. 


Chap.  IL 


PAPALIST  WRITINGS. 


107 


to  unfailing  faithfulness,  are  controverted;0  and  the 
treatise  ends  by  exposing  some  of  the  current  sayings  as 
to  the  superiority  of  spiritual  to  secular  power,  and  by 
combating  the  inferences  which  were  drawn  in  the  papal 
interest  from  the  alleged  transference  of  the  empire  from 
the  Greeks  to  the  Germans. e 

The  freedom  of  speculation  which  these  an tipapal  writers 
displayed  was,  indeed,  more  likely  to  alarm  than  to  con¬ 
vince  the  men  of  that  age ;  but  this  effect  was  perhaps  more 
than  counterbalanced  by  the  extravagances  into  which 
the  assertion  of  the  papal  pretensions  was  carried  out  by 
such  champions  as  Augustine  Trionfi,  an  Augustinian 
friar  of  Ancona, f  and  Alvar  Pelayo,  a  Spanish  Franciscan 
who  eventually  became  bishop  of  Silves,  in  Portugal. g 
All  the  old  claims  of  the  Hildebrandine  party  were  put 
forward,  with  those  falsifications  of  history  to  which  time 
had  given  the  currency  of  undoubted  truths.  It  was 
maintained  that  all  powers,  both  spiritual  and  secular, 
belonged  to  the  pope,  and  that  princes  exercised  power 
only  as  his  delegates;  that  to  deny  this  would  be  “not  far 
from  heresy;”11  that  whatever  might  have  been  granted 
by  emperors  to  popes  (as  the  donation  of  Constantine 
to  Sylvester)  was  not  properly  a  gift,  but  a  restitution  of 
something  which  had  been  wrongfully  taken  away ;  that 
the  pope’s  sovereignty  extends  even  over  the  heathen ; 
that  he  has  all  kingdoms  in  his  absolute  disposal ;  that 


d  ii.  28-9. 

a  ii.  30.  The  "conclusions”  are 
summed  up  at  the  end. 

f  Schrockh,  xxxi.  104.  The  edition 
of  his  *  Summa  de  Potestate  Ec- 
clesiastica'  which  is  in  the  British 
Museum,  bears  the  date  of  Augsburg, 
1473,  and  is  much  like  a  MS.  as  to  the 
form  of  letters,  contractions,  etc.  It 
has  no  paging,  and  my  knowledge  of 
the  contents  is  chiefly  through  Giese- 
ler,  II.  iii.  42-7. 

*  ‘De  Planctu  Ecclesise,’  Venet. 


1560 — a  folio  of  600  pages,  closely 
printed  in  double  columns.  The  book 
was  written  at  Avignon  in  1530,  and 
revised  ten  years  later  (Giesel.  II.  iii. 
47).  It  is  remarkable  how  the  writer 
combines  with  his  extravagant  papa  ism 
an  unsparing  exposure  of  the  corrup¬ 
tions  which  existed  in  the  church,  and 
had  their  real  source  in  the  system  of 
the  pope  and  his  court.  See  Janus, 
247-8. 

h  Alv.  Pelag.  37,  fol.  12-13. 


SUBMISSION  OF 


Book  VIII. 


ioS 


he  is  entitled  to  appoint  and  to  depose  the  emperor  and 
all  other  sovereigns ;  that  the  German  electors  hold  their 
power  of  election  from  him ; 1  that  the  pope  cannot  be 
deposed  for  any  crime — even  for  heresy,  if  he  be  willing 
to  be  corrected  ;k  and  that  he  cannot  be  judged,  even  by 
a  general  council.1 

The  Germans  in  general  were  strongly  in  favour  of 
Lewis,  and  the  more  so  because  the  pope  showed  an 
inclination  to  make  over  the  imperial  crown,  as  if  it  were 
forfeited  and  vacant,  to  the  reigning  sovereign  of  France."1 
With  a  view  to  this,  Charles  IV.,  who  succeeded  his 
brother  Philip  in  1322,  and  who,  like  his  father,  bore  the 
epithet  of  “  le  Bel,"  had  visited  the  papal  court  in  com¬ 
pany  with  king  John  of  Bohemia,  who,  in  consequence 
of  some  supposed  wrongs,  had  turned  against  Lewis. 
Robert  of  Naples,  who  was  then  at  Avignon,  joined  in 
the  consultations  which  were  held  ;  and  it  was  after  these 
conferences  that  the  ban  of  March  21,  1324,  was  pro¬ 
nounced."  With  the  same  purpose,  an  alliance  with  the 
Austrian  party  was  projected;  but  a  meeting  between 
Charles  and  Leopold,  at  Bar  on  the  Aube,  was  unsatis¬ 
factory,0  and  although  the  proposal  was  discussed  in  an 
assembly  of  the  German  princes  at  Rhense,  early  in  1325, 
it  was  rejected,  chiefly  through  the  effect  of  an  appeal 
which  Bertold  of  Bucheck,  commander  of  the  knights  of 
St.  John,  made  to  the  national  feeling  by  insisting  on  the 
disgrace  of  transferring  the  empire  to  foreigners  for  the 
mere  gratification  ol  the  pope’s  vindictiveness. p 

Leopold  of  Austria,  despairing  of  success  for  his  party, 
was  induced  to  send  the  insignia  of  the  empire  to  Lewis, 


1  Aug.  Triumph,  ap.  Giesel.  II.  Iii. 
43-7- 

k  Alv.  Pelag.  i.  4.  It  will  be  seen 
that  even  this  falls  far  short  of  the  no¬ 
tions  which  have  since  become  common 
in  the  Roman  church.  See  vol.  ii.  p.  438. 

1  Aiv.  Pelag.  i.  6. 


m  Olensl.  123. 

n  G.  Vill.  ix.  24 ;  Olensl.  130-3. 

0  lb.  147-8. 

p  M.  Neoburg.  123;  Olensl.  153-4; 
Schmidt,  iv.  535.  By  this  Bertold  for¬ 
feited  the  succession  to  his  brother  as 
archbishop  of  Mentz.  M.  Neob.  L  c. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1324-5.  THE  AUSTRIAN  PRINCES. 


I09 


August  1324. 


March  1325. 


May  4,  1325. 


in  the  hope  of  obtaining  the  release  of  his  brother 
Fredericks  In  this  he  was  disappointed  ; 
but  an  agreement  was  soon  after  made  by 
which  Frederick  was  set  at  liberty  on  certain  conditions, 
among  which  it  was  stipulated  that  he  should  renounce  all 
further  designs  on  the  empire,  and  should  ally  himself  with 
Lewis  against  all  men,  especially  “against 
him  who  styles  himself  pope,  with  all  who 
abet  or  favour  him,  so  long  as  he  should  be  opposed  to 
the  king  and  kingdom.”1-  Although  the  details  of  this 
compact  were  kept  secret  for  a  time,  the  pope,  without 
knowing  what  they  were,  annulled  it,  on  the 
ground  that  no  such  agreement  with  an 
excommunicated  person  could  be  binding.8  But  Frede¬ 
rick  disdained  to  avail  himself  of  this  evasion,  and  find¬ 
ing,  after  strenuous  efforts,  that  it  was  impossible  to 
fulfil  the  conditions  of  his  engagement,  he  carried  out 
the  alternative  which  had  been  prescribed  in  the  treaty 
by  repairing  to  Munich,  and  throwing  himself  on  the 
mercy  of  his  rival.1  Lewis  met  this  “  old  German 
fidelity  ”  with  a  corresponding  generosity,  and  admitted 
his  captive  into  the  closest  intimacy.  They  ate  at  the 
same  table,  and  even  slept  in  the  same  bed ;  and  when 
Lewis  was  called  away  for  a  time  from  Bavaria,  he  left 
the  care  of  defending  the  country  to  Frederick  as  his 
representative.11  A  scheme  for  sharing  the  empire  be- 


q  Lewis  had  bargained  for  them  as  a 
condition  of  entering  into  negotiations 
(Mon.  Fiirstenfeld.  in  Bohmer,  i.  64). 
There  is  a  story  that  Frederick’s  wife, 
by  incantations,  set  on  devils  to  attempt 
his  deliverance  from  prison,  and  that 
Frederick  defeated  the  plan  by  making 
the  sign  of  the  cross  (Andr.  Ratisb.  in 
Eccard.  i.2097;  Matth.  Neoburg.  123; 
Joh.  Vilodur.  1792;  J  Trithem.  Chron. 
Hirsaug.  1323 ;  see  Olensl.  120).  Count 
Mailath  supposes  the  demon  who  is  said 
to  have  appeared  to  Frederick  to  have 


been  really  a  travelling  student  (i.  119). 

r  Olensl.  Urk.  44  ;  G.  Vill.  ix.  293 ; 
W.  Nang.  cont.  85.  See  Hen.  Her- 
vord.  238. 

*  Olensl.  LTrk.  45. 

I  lb.  Anh.  p.  132  ;  Joh.  Viet,  in 
Bohmer,  i.  399. 

II  Olensl.  159 ;  Schiller’s  poem, 
‘  Deutsche  Treue,’ is  well  known.  The 
pope,  unable  to  understand  such  ro¬ 
mantic  honour,  expressed  his  surprise 
at  it  (“familiaritatem  et  amicitiam 
illorum  ducum  incredibilem  ”)  in  a 


no 


LEWIS  IN  ITALY. 


Book  VIII. 


Feb.  29,  1326. 


tween  them  as  equal  colleagues  was  devised,  as  Lewis 
was  in  fresh  difficulties,  which  made  some  compromise 
desirable  ;x  but  as  this  was  found  to  give  offence  to  the 
electors,  who  complained  that  their  right  of  choice  was 
set  aside,  it  was  proposed  that  one  of  the  elect  kings 
should  reign  in  Italy,  and  the  other  in  Germany.3"  But 
the  sudden  death  of  Leopold,  who  was  regarded  as  the 
chief  support  of  the  Austrian  party,2  ap¬ 
peared  at  once  to  relieve  Lewis  from  all 
dread  of  that  party,  and  to  release  him  from  any  engage¬ 
ments  which  had  not  been  completed  with  it. 

He  now  resolved  to  proceed  into  Italy,  in  compliance 
with  invitations  which  he  had  received  from  the  Ghibelline 
chiefs  and  from  a  party  among  the  Romans.  But  on  pro¬ 
posing  the  expedition  to  a  diet  at  Spires,  he  found  that 
the  great  feudatories  (especially  the  ecclesiastical  electors) 
refused  to  accompany  him ;  for,  although  bound  to  do  so 
when  a  king  of  the  Romans  was  about  to  receive  the  im¬ 
perial  crown,  they  alleged  that  they  owed  no  such  duty  to 
a  king  who  was  excommunicate,  and  whose  relations  with 
the  pope  were  altogether  such  as  to  shut  out  the  hope  of 
his  coronation.8  Lewis,  however,  persevered, 
although  the  force  which  he  was  able  to  take 
with  him  across  the  Alps  was  so  small  that  a  chronicler 
of  the  age  likens  it  to  a  hunting  party. b  At  Trent,  where 
he  was  met  by  some  heads  of  the  Ghibelline  faction,  and 
by  the  representatives  of  others,  a  great  demonstration 
took  place  against  the  pope,  to  whom  he  had  lately  made 
fresh  overtures  without  success.0  Marsilius  of  Padua 
and  John  of  Jandun  excited  the  indignation  of  the 


Feb.  1327. 


letter  to  Charles  of  France.  Olensl. 
Urk.  47. 

x  lb.  p.  165-7,  and  Urk.  50-1. 
y  lb.  p.  170,  and  Anh.  135;  Schmidt, 
*v.  537-8. 

*  G.  VL1L  ix.  314 ;  Matth.  Neoburg. 


*  Olensl.  176-8  ;  Schmidt,  iii.  542. 
b  “  Cum  viginti  tantum  equis  vel 
circiter,  quasi  venationi  vacans.”  W. 
Nang.  cont.  87.  Bohmer  makes  the 
number  100.  Regesta,  54. 
e  Olensl.  178. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1326-7.  CORONATION  AT  MILAN. 


Ill 


assembly  by  enlarging  on  the  misdeeds  of  “  priest  John” 
(as  they  contemptuously  styled  himd)  ;  eighteen  articles 
were  drawn  up  against  him,  and  he  was  declared  to 
be  a  heretic  and  unworthy  of  the  papacy.  In  these 
proceedings  the  emperor  was  supported  by  many  bishops, 
by  the  grand-master  of  the  Teutonic  order,  and  by  a 
multitude  of  Franciscans,  Dominicans,  and  others,  whose 
natural  attachment  to  the  papacy  had  been  turned  into 

enmity  against  the  existing  pope.e  At  Milan, 

4-1  ii*i  1  A  .  i  n-  1  .  •  Whit-Sunday. 

as  the  archbishop  had  taken  night,  the  iron 

crown  was  placed  on  the  head  of  Lewis  by  three  bishops 

who  had  been  expelled  from  their  sees  by  the  Guelfs 

but  he  imprudently  alienated  the  family  of  Visconti,  who 

had  been  the  chief  supporters  of  the  imperial  interest  in 

northern  Italy,  and,  by  depriving  Galeazzo 

of  his  signory  and  imprisoning  him,  he  spread  jU‘y 

alarm  among  the  Ghibelline  tyrants  of  Lombardy  and  ot 

Tuscany. g  In  he  meantime  the  report  of  the  meeting  at 

Trent  provoked  the  pope  to  issue  a  “  fifth 

process,”  by  which,  after  a  long  recital  of 

the  previous  dealings,  Lewis  was  pronounced  to  be 

deprived  of  all  fiefs  which  he  held,  not  only  under  the 

church,  but  under  the  empire,  and  was  summoned  to 

appear  at  Avignon  in  order  to  hear  his  sentence.*1 


Apr.  3,  1327. 


d  Olensl.  181.  e  G.  Vill.  x.  15,  18. 
f  lb.  18  ;  Gualv.  Flamma,  c.  365  ; 
Antonin,  iii.  322  ;  Olensl.  182.  The 
names  of  these  bishops  are  variously 
given.  The  bishop  of  Arezzo,  Guy 
Tarlati,  who  was  one  of  them,  after¬ 
wards  forsook  Lewis,  and  died  penitent. 
G.  Vill.  x.  24. 

e  lb.  30-1;  Gualv.  Flamma,  368; 
Olensl.  186.  G.  Villani  says  that  his 
proceedings  against  Galeazzo  Visconti 
were  according  to  “la  parola  di  Cristo 
nel  suo  santo  Evangelio,  Io  ucciderb  il 
Ttemico  mio  col  nemico  mio but  he 
gives  no  reference  for  this  text,  and 


Antoninus,  who  follows  him,  omits  it 
(iii.  322).  Henry  of  Hervorden,  in 
mentioning  the  death  of  Galeazzo  (1329) 
styles  him  “  homo  sollertissimus,  saga- 
cissimus,  moderatissimus,  benignissi- 
mus,  et  ad  virtutem  omnem  sumrae 
dispositus,  utpote  qui  Secundam 
Summze  beatissimi  doctoris  S.  Thomas 
de  Aquino  super  omnes  etiam  cujus- 
libet  conditionis  homines  didicerat,  in- 
tellexerat,  alta  mente  retinebat,  et  ad 
linguam  semper  habebat.”  249. 

11  Olensl.  Urk.  53.  In  Martene, 
Thes.  ii.  680,  a  citation  is  added,  with 
censures  for  maintaining  the  spiritual- 


1 1  2 


LEWIS  IV.  AT  ROME. 


Boose  VIII. 


About  the  same  time  were  uttered  other  papal  denun¬ 
ciations.1 

Rome  had,  since  the  withdrawal  of  the  popes,  been 
under  a  republican  government,  and  had  in  turn  been 
swayed  by  the  influence  of  Robert  of  Naples,  of  the  papal 
legates  and  other  envoys,  and  of  its  great  families — the 
imperialist  Savellis,  the  papalist  Orsinis,  and  the  Colon- 
nas,  whose  chiefs,  the  brothers  Stephen  and  Sciarra,  were 
arrayed  in  opposition  to  each  other.k  The  Romans  had 
already  entreated  the  pope  to  return,  and  now  renewed 
the  request ;  but  John  excused  himself  on  the  ground  of 
important  business  which  detained  him  in  France,  of  the 
unsettled  state  of  Italy,  and  of  the  commotions  and 
changes  which  had  lately  taken  place  in  Rome  itself. 
He  promised,  however,  to  return  at  a  later  time,  and  he 
warned  them  in  the  meanwhile  to  avoid  Lewis,  as  being  a 
heretic,  excommunicate,  and  a  persecutor  of  the  church.1 
By  this  reply,  and  by  the  attempt  of  a  Genoese  force,  in 
alliance  with  the  pope,  to  surprise  their  city  and  to  set 
fire  to  the  Vatican  quarter,01  the  Romans  were  disposed 
in  favour  of  Lewis,  who  entered  the  city  on  the  7th  of 
January  1328,  and  was  received  with  general  exultation.0 
Of  the  clergy  who  adhered  to  the  pope,  some  fled,  and 
others  refused  to  perform  the  offices  of  religion;  but 
Lewis  was  accompanied  by  a  train  of  bishops,  clergy, 
monks,  and  friars,  who  made  him  independent  of  this 
opposition.0  A  great  assemblage  at  the  Capitol  pro¬ 
claimed  him  king  of  the  Romans  and  lord  of  Rome  ;P 


ist  doctrine  of  poverty,  for  consorting 
with  Marsilius  and  John  of  Jandun, 
etc.,  as  to  whose  excommunication 
(Oct.  1327)  see  ib.  704 ;  Rymer,  ii.  719. 

*  E.g.,  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  186. 

k  Alb.  Mussat.  in  Murat,  x.  772  ; 
Sism.  iv.  53  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  136,  185. 

*  G.  Vill.  x.  19  ;  Schmidt,  iii.  545. 

m  G.  Vill.  x.  20  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  138-9. 

n  Vita  Ludov.  in  Bohmer,  i.  156. 


0  G.  Vill.  x.  S3  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  142. 
A  canon  of  St.  Peter’s  hid  the  Veronica, 
lest  the  heretical  imperialists  should 
unworthily  see  it.  (G.  Vill.  1.  c.)  After 
having  found  a  refuge  at  the  Pantheon, 
the  famous  relic  was  restored  to  its 
place  in  St  Peter’s  on  the  emperor’s 
leaving  Rome.  John  to  the  French 
king,  in  Rayn.  1328.  51. 
v  G.  Vill.  1.  c. 


Chap.  II.  a..d.  1328. 


CORONATION  AS  EMPEROR.  113 


March  31. 


and  on  the  17th  of  January  he  was  crowned  as  emperor 
in  St.  Peter’s.  The  unction  was  administered  by  the 
bishops  of  Gastello  and  Aleria,  both  already  excommuni¬ 
cated  by  the  pope ;  the  sword  was  girt  on  his  thigh  by 
Castruccio  Castrucani,  lord  of  Lucca,  as  count  of  the 
Lateran  palace;'1  and  the  crown  was  placed  on  his  head 
by  Sciarra  Colonna,  whom  the  Romans  had  lately  elected 
as  their  captain. r  At  the  same  time  the  empress  was 
crowned,  and  Lewis  bound  himself  by  three  decrees  to 
maintain  the  catholic  faith,  to  reverence  the  clergy,  and 
to  protect  widows  and  orphans. s  The  pope,  on  being- 
informed  of  these  proceedings,  denounced  the  emperor 
afresh,  declared  his  coronations,  both  at  Milan 
and  at  Rome,  to  be  null,  proclaimed  a  crusade 
against  him,  and  exhorted  the  Romans  to  arrest  the  two 
impugners  of  the  papal  authority,  Marsilius  and  John  of 
Jandun — the  former  of  whom  had  been  appointed  im¬ 
perial  vicar  of  the  city,  and  exerted  himself  in  compelling 
the  reluctant  clergy  to  say  mass.1 

On  the  1 8th  of  April  the  emperor  appeared  with  all 
the  insignia  of  his  dignity  on  a  throne  erected  in  the 
Place  of  St.  Peter’s.  In  the  presence  of  a  vast  assembly 
which  stood  around,  an  accusation  against  the  pope  was 
delivered  by  some  Franciscans,  and  by  two  syndics  who 
professed  to  represent  the  Roman  clergy ;  and  the 
question  was  thrice  proclaimed  whether  any  one  wished 
to  appear  as  procurator  for  priest  James  of  Cahors,  who 


1  See  Olensl.  Urk.  56  ;  Hist.  Pistol, 
in  Murat,  xi.  443-5. 

r  Hist.  Rom.  Fragm.  in  Murat. 
Antiq.  Ital.  iii.  261.  “  Prsetenderunt 

enim  urbici  hoc  eis  competere,  papa 
etiam  nolente ;  praesertim  cum  senatores 
prius  papam  requisiverant  ut  ad  urbem 
se  transferret”  (Matth.  Neoburg.  124). 
John  of  Vichtring  says  that  it  is  the 
prefect’s  function  to  present  the  crown 
to  the  pope,  by  whom  it  is  to  be  placed 

VOL.  VII. 


on  the  emperor’s  head  (Bohm.  i.  404). 
In  remembrance  of  the  part  taken  b> 
Sciarra  on  this  occasion,  the  Colonnas 
still  bear  the  crown  in  their  arms. 
Olensl.  191. 

8  G.  Vill.  x.  53-4 ;  Baluz.  V.  P. 
Aven.  i.  713;  Cron.  Sanese  in  Murat, 
xv.  79  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  136,  143,  145, 
147 ;  Sism.  iv.  54. 

*  Olensl.  Urk.  57 ;  Mart.  Thes.  ii. 
727  ;  cf.  716,  736  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  152. 

8 


LEWIS  IV.  AT  ROME. 


Rook  VIII. 


JI4 


styled  himself  Pope  John  the  Twenty-Second  ;  but  no 
one  took  up  the  challenge.  A  German  abbot  then 
preached  an  eloquent  sermon  in  Latin,  enlarging  on  the 
emperor’s  love  of  justice  and  on  the  offences  committed 
by  Pope  John  ;  and  the  imperial  sentence  was  read  aloud. 
In  this  John  was  charged  with  having  neglected  the 
interest  of  Christendom  and  with  having  exposed  it  to 
Saracens  and  heathens ;  with  having  asserted  that  the 
Saviour  and  His  disciples  were  possessed  of  property  ; 
with  having  attempted  to  usurp  temporal  power,  whereas 
Christ  commanded  that  we  should  render  unto  Caesar 
the  things  that  are  Caesar’s,  and  declared  His  kingdom 
to  be  not  of  this  world ;  with  having  questioned  the 
emperor’s  election,  which  had  been  regularly  made  and 
did  not  need  the  papal  confirmation.  For  these  offences 
John  was  pronounced  to  be  deprived  of  the  papacy  and 
of  all  benefices  spiritual  or  temporal,  and  to  be  subject  to 
the  penalties  of  heresy  and  treason  ;  and  the  emperor 
declared  that,  after  the  example  of  his  predecessor  Otho 
the  Great,"  he  held  it  his  duty  to  provide  the  apostolic 
see  with  a  new  and  fit  occupant.x  The  rashness  of  such 
a  step  began  to  be  manifest  four  days  later,  when  James 
Colonna,  a  canon  of  the  Lateran,  and  son  of  Stephen 
(who  had  been  driven  from  the  city  by  his  brother  Sciarra), 
read  in  public  the  pope’s  last  and  bitterest  sentence 
against  Lewis,  which  no  one  had  as  yet  ventured  to 
publish  at  Rome.  After  having  declared  his  adhesion 
to  John,  he  affixed  the  paper  to  the  door  of  the  church 
of  St.  Marcellus,  and  escaped  unmolested  to  Palestrina/ 
Yet  Lewis  was  resolved  to  go  on. 

"  John  Villani  wrongly  says  Otho  gorov.  vi.  154. 
the  third,  x.  63.  y  G.  Vill.  x.  69;  Gregorov.  vi.  157. 

x  Baluz.  ii.  5x2,  seqq.  ;  or  another  For  this  the  pope  rewarded  him  with  a 
form  afterwards  published  at  Pisa,  ib.  bishoprick  (G.  Vill.  1.  c.).  Albertin 
522,  seqq.  ;  Olensl.  Urk.  58;  G.  Vill.  Mussato  says  that  Lewis  burnt  John  in 

68.  Marsilius  is  supposed  to  have  effigy  (Rohmer,  Fontes,  i.  89)  ;  and  this 
oecn  the  author  of  the  document.  Gre-  Dean  Milman  (v.  306)  supposes  to  be 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1328. 


NICOLAS  V.,  ANTIPOPE. 


1 1 


On  the  following  day  a  statute  was  published,  by  which 
it  was  forbidden  that  the  pope  should  go  to 
the  distance  of  two  days’  journey  from  Rome  Aljnl  2F 
without  the  consent  of  the  clergy  and  people,  and  it  was 
enacted  that,  if  after  three  citations  he  should  refuse  to 
return,  a  new  pope  should  be  chosen  in  his  stead.2 

On  Ascension-day,  the  12th  of  May,  a  multitude  was 
again  assembled  in  front  of  St.  Peter’s.  A  sermon  was 
preached  by  a  monk,  in  which  pope  John  was  compared 
to  Herod,  while  Lewis  was  likened  to  the  angel  who 
delivered  St.  Peter  out  of  prison ;  and  the  bishop  of 
Venice  thrice  proposed  to  the  assembled  multitude  that 
Peter  Rainalucci,  of  Corbaria,  should  be  elected  to  the 
papacy.  The  imperialists  were  present  in  such  numbers 
as  to  overpower  all  differences  of  opinion  ;  and  Peter  was 
invested  with  the  papal  mantle  by  the  emperor, a  who 
saluted  him  by  the  name  of  Nicolas  the  Fifth,  placed  him 
at  his  own  right  hand,  and  afterwards  accompanied  him 
into  the  church  in  order  to  be  present  at  his  celebration 
of  mass.b  The  antipope,  a  man  of  humble  parentage,0 
had  been  married  in  early  life,  but  had  separated  from 
his  wife  that  he  might  enter  the  Franciscan  order  :d  he 
had  held  the  office  of  papal  penitentiary,  and,  notwith¬ 
standing  the  aspersions  of  his  enemies, e  it  would  seem 


the  origin  of  a  story,  which  Rinaldi 
(1328.  23)  professes  to  give  on  unpub¬ 
lished  authority,  and  Bohmer(Regesta, 
60)  seems  to  believe — that  John  was 
condemned  to  death  by  Lewis. 

2  Olensl.  Urk.  59 ;  G.  Vill.  x.  70. 
See  W.  Nang.  cont.  88. 

2  This  was  usually  done  by  the  arch¬ 
deacon.  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  706. 
b  G.  Vill.  x.  71  ;  Olensl.  201-2. 
c  Bernard  Guidonis  describes  his 
father  as  “  rusticus  et  pauper."  Baluz. 
V.  P.  Aven.  i.  142. 

d  Bernard  Guidonis  says  that  the 
separation  was  without  the  wife’s  con¬ 
sent  (cf.  pope  John  in  Mart.  Thes.  ii. 


765),  and  that  she  sued  before  the 
bishop  of  Rieti  for  a  restoration  of  con¬ 
jugal  rights,  and  obtained  a  favourable 
judgment  in  November,  1328  (Baluz. 
V.  P.  Aven.  i.  142  ;  cf.  W.  Nang.  cont. 
91).  But  Nicolas  had  been  a  friar  at 
least  as  early  as  1310,  and  it  would 
seem  that  this  suit,  instituted  after  his 
appearance  as  antipope,  was  got  up  in 
order  to  annoy  him  (lb.  705).  Some 
writers  trace  the  fable  of  pope  Joan 
to  the  case  of  this  antipope’s  wife  (Bal. 
iv.  240) ;  but  it  was  of  earlier  inven¬ 
tion.  See  vol.  iii.  p.  341. 

e  Alvar  Pelayo,  who  had  known  him 
in  the  convent  of  Ara  Coeli,  represents 


NICOLAS  V.,  ANTIPOPE. 


Book  VIII. 


1 16 


that  he  had  been  highly  esteemed  for  learning  and 
prudence.1  But,  although  he  had  hitherto  professed  the 
opinion  of  the  most  rigid  party  among  his  order  as  to 
evangelical  poverty,  he  fell  at  once,  on  assuming  the  title 
of  pope,  into  the  traditional  habits  of  pomp  and  luxury, 
for  which  the  means  were  chiefly  provided  by  the  tradi¬ 
tional  expedients  of  selling  offices  and  preferments. K 
He  made  seven  cardinals,  all  of  them  men  who  had  been 
deposed  from  dignities  by  pope  John,  or.  had  been  pro¬ 
minent  in  opposition  to  him  ; h  he  pronounced  deposition 
against  bishops  who  adhered  to  his  rival,  and  nominated 
others  to  fill  their  sees — among  them,  Marsilius  to  be 
archbishop  of  Milan;1  he  affected  to  appoint  legates, 
and  on  Whitsunday  he  confirmed  Lewis  in  the  imperial 
dignity,  and  pronounced  on  him  a  solemn  benediction, 
but  with  a  careful  avoidance  of  everything  that  might 
have  seemed  to  imply  a  claim  to  the  right  of  conferring 
the  imperial  office,  or  a  subordination  of  the  secular  to 
the  spiritual  power. k 

Lewis  soon  began  to  find  himself  uneasy  at  Rome. 
His  delay  there  had  given  an  advantage  to  Robert  of 
Naples,  whereas  it  is  not  improbable  that,  by  vigorously 
pushing  forwards  to  the  south,  he  might  have  been  able 
to  overthrow  the  Angevine  dynasty.  A  Neapolitan  fleet 
took  Ostia,  and  some  of  the  ships  advanced  up  the  Tiber 
as  far  as  the  convent  of  St.  Paul,  committing  devastations 


him  as  a  hypocrite,  and  as  living  much 
among  women  (De  Planctu  Eccl.  I.  i. 
37,  foL  13).  — “  Quern  corvinum  appello, 
quia  ut  corvus  de  morte  schismaticae 
divisionis  pascitur,  et  quia  ut  corvus 
furtive  et  latro  in  sede  Petri  resedit,” 
etc.  (Ib.  Prooem.).  For  the  antipope’s 
character  generally,  see  Baluz.  V.  P. 
Aven.  i.  702,  seqq.  ;  Olensl.  201.  It 
is  said  that  Lewis  set  him  up  chiefly 
in  order  to  gratify  a  party  among  the 
Romans.  Annal.  Ensdorf.  in  Pertz, 
xvi.  7 ;  Baluz.  1.  c. 


f  “  Eo  usque  vita  et  honestate  pro- 
batum,”  says  Alb.  Mussato,  773. 

s  G.  Vill.  x.  73  ;  Olensl.  305.  For 
councils  against  Nicolas,  see  Mansi, 
xxi.  827,  seqq. 

h  Cron.  Sanese  in  Murat,  xv.  80. 

1  Gualv.  Flamma,  i.  366 ;  Hist. 
Pistol,  in  Mur.  xi.  445. 

k  G.  Vill.  x.  73-4  ;  Dolling,  ii.  262 
Gregorov.  vi.  164.  “  Ita  falsus  im- 

perator  et  falsus  pontifex  sibi  inviccm 
authores  dignitatis  fuere.  ”  Antonin, 
iii.  326. 


CHAI\  II.  A.D.  1328. 


LEWIS  LEAVES  ROME. 


117 


of  which  the  blame  was  commonly  thrown  on  the  empe¬ 
ror.1  The  citizens,  instead  of  receiving  from  the  emperor 
the  benefits  which  they  had  expected,  found  themselves 
oppressed  by  taxes,  which  his  own  necessities  and  those 
of  his  pope  compelled  him  to  impose."1  The  Ghibellines 
had  been  offended  by  some  impolitic  measures ;  and, 
while  Nicolas  met  with  little  or  no  acknowledgment  even 
among  the  imperialists  of  the  city,11  the  party  of  John, 
whose  intrigues  were  incessant,  recovered  its  force.0 
Provisions  became  scarce, p  partly  because  the  supplies 
were  cut  off  by  the  Neapolitan  troops,  and  the  emperor’s 
own  soldiers,  being  unable  to  get  their  pay,  swelled  the 
grievances  of  the  Romans  by  plundering ;  the  northern 
Germans  quarrelled  with  those  of  the  south,  and  many 
of  the  soldiers  deserted.*1  After  a  vain  attempt  to  pro¬ 
ceed  southward,  Lewis  left  Rome  on  the  4th  of  August, 
amidst  general  curses  and  derision,  mixed  with  acclama¬ 
tions  in  honour  of  “  holy  church.”1.  Stones  were  thrown 
as  he  retired,  and  some  of  his  men  were  killed.  In  token 
of  the  popular  feeling,  the  privileges  which  had  been 
granted  by  the  emperor  and  the  antipope  were  burnt  in 
the  Place  of  the  Capitol ;  even  some  bodies  of  Germans 
were  dragged  from  their  graves  and  ignominiously  thrown 
into  the  Tiber.8 

At  Pisa,  where  he  had  been  joined  by  the  leaders  of 
the  disaffected  Franciscans — Michael  of  Cesena,  Bona- 
gratia,  and  William  of  Ockham,  who  had  all  escaped 
from  detention  at  Avignon1 — the  emperor  held  an 
assembly  on  the  13th  of  December,  when  Michael 
denounced  pope  John  as  a  heretic,  and  the  emperor 


1  G.  Vill.  x.  54,  72;  Matth.  Neo¬ 
burg.  124;  Giann.  iv.  12;  Gregorov. 
vi.  164. 

m  G.  Vill.  x.  66  ;  Olensl.  205. 
n  The  chronicler  of  Pistoia,  how¬ 
ever,  says  that  he  was  owned  by  all 
the  Ghibellines  throughout  Italy,  “si 


laici  come  cherici  e  prelati.”  Murat, 
xi.  445- 

0  Murat.  Ann.  VIII.  i.  196;  Gre- 
gorov.  vi.  164. 

p  Alb.  Mussat.  in  Bohmer,  i.  182. 

G.  Vill.  x.  76.  r  lb.  96. 

8  lb.  1  Alb.  Muss.  775. 


LEWIS  RETURNS  TO  GERMANY. 


Book  VIII. 


itS 


again  pronounced  him  to  be  deposed.  About  the  same 
time  John  at  Avignon  renewed  his  condemnation  of  the 
emperor  as  a  heretic  and  a  persecutor  of  the  church,  and 
declared  the  antipope  a  heretic  and  schismatic. u  The 
antipope  joined  Lewis  at  Pisa,  where  he  carried  on  the 
system  of  ejecting  Guelf  bishops  and  substituting  Ghibel- 
lines,  from  whom  payments  were  extorted  for  their  pro- 
motion.x  But,  on  the  emperor’s  departure 

pn  13-9.  from  oity  Nicolas  was  left  behind,  and 
Lewis,  as  he  proceeded  northwards, y  found  the  Italians 
less  and  less  favourably  disposed,  while  discontent  and 
desertion  became  more  rife  among  his  own  troops.2  In 
the  end  of  January  1330  the  emperor  recrossed  the  Alps. 
His  expedition  to  Italy  had  ruined  the  imperial  cause  in 
that  country,  and  his  failure  had  given  additional  force  to 
the  impression  made  by  the  papal  curses.  The  Romans 
swore  fealty  anew  to  the  pope,  and,  with  Pisa  and  other 
Italian  cities,  entreated  his  forgiveness  for  their  temporary 
submission  to  Lewis.* 

The  antipope,  when  left  at  Pisa,  was  glad  to  find 
shelter  with  a  powerful  nobleman,  count  Boniface  of 
Donoratico,  but  in  the  following  year  was,  after  much 
urgency,  given  up  by  him  to  the  pope,  on  condition  that 
his  life  should  be  spared.b  On  St.  James’s  day  Nicolas 
abjured  his  errors  in  the  cathedral  of  Pisa,  expressing 
deep  contrition  for  his  conduct  and  casting  much 


n  G.  Vill.  x.  1 13  ;  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven. 
ii.  546;  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  763. 
x  G.  Vill.  x.  121  ;  Hist.  Pistol.  453. 
y  In  the  Annals  of  Parma  (Pertz, 
xviii.  775)  is  a  curious  account  of  the 
difficulties  caused,  as  the  emperor  was 
in  that  city,  by  the  question  as  to  ob¬ 
servance  of  the  pope’s  sentences.  The 
local  clergy  in  general  celebrated  their 
services  with  closed  doors  ;  but  those 
who  attended  on  Lewis,  headed  by 
Michael  of  Cesena,  officiated  with 


ringing  of  bells,  etc. 

z  G.  Vill.  x.  107 ;  Annal.  Mutin.  in 
Murat,  xi.  121  ;  Gualv.  Flamma,  i. 
366,  ib.  xi. 

*  Rayn.  1329.  8,  ir,  17-20 ;  1332. 
40,  seqq. ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  54-5; 
Schrockh,  xxxi.  116;  Gregorov.  vi. 
174,  179. 

b  Bern.  Guidon,  in  Baluz.  V.  P. 
Aven.  i.  143;  Cron,  di  Pisa,  in  Baluz. 
Misc.  i.  456. 


Chap.  II.  a. d.  1329-30. 


ENMITY  OF  JOHN  XXII. 


119 


blame  on  the  emperor.0  The  ceremony  was  afterwards 
repeated  at  Avignon,  where  he  appeared  with  a  rope 
around  his  neck,  and  threw  himself  at  the  feet  of  his 
triumphant  rival.  John  raised  him  up,  released  him 
from  the  rope,  and  admitted  him  to  the  kiss  of  peace/1 
The  fallen  antipope  spent  the  remaining  three  years  of 
his  life  in  an  apartment  of  the  papal  palace,  where  he 
was  supplied  with  the  means  of  study,  but  was  strictly 
secluded  from  all  intercourse  with  men.e 

The  death  of  Frederick  of  Austria,  in  January  1330/ 
appeared  to  favour  the  establishment  of  peace  between 
the  papacy  and  the  empire ;  but  the  pope,  acting  under 
the  influence  of  Naples  and  of  France,  was  bent  on 
effecting  the  ruin  of  Lewis.  He  scornfully  rejected 
the  mediation  of  the  king  of  Bohemia,  who  had  been 
empowered  by  the  emperor  to  offer  very  humiliating 
terms  :s  he  uttered  fresh  anathemas,  in  “aggravation” 
of  his  former  denunciations  ;h  he  endeavoured  to  stir  up 
enemies  against  Lewis  on  all  sides,  and  encouraged  his 
neighbours  to  attack  him — not  scrupling  even  to  let  loose 
the  heathens  who  bordered  on  Brandenburg  for  an  in- 


c  Hist.  Pistol.  459;  Rayn.  1330.  26; 
Wadd.  1330.  1-9.  See  Mansi  in  Rayn. 
v.  468. 

d  W.  Nang.  cont.  93  ;  Gualv.  Flamma, 
1002 ;  Mart.  Polon.  cont.  1448.  The 
first  meeting  was  on  Aug.  25  ;  the  al> 
juration,  on  Sept.  6.  For  the  form,  see 
Rayn.  1330.  11-24. 

e  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  145,  149  :  G. 
Vill.  x.  162  ;  Mansi,  xxv.  580  :  Olensl. 
222  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  175.  John  of  Vich- 
tring  says  that  the  pope  would  have 
made  him  a  bishop  but  for  the  opposi¬ 
tion  of  the  cardinals,  who  urged  that 
so  great  a  misdeed  ought  not  to  be  so 
lightly  passed  over.  Bbhmer,  i.  409. 

f  Olensl.  214.  Lewis  heard  of  it  at 
Trent.  Frederick  is  said  to  have  been 
eaten  up  by  lice — as  some  say,  for 
breach  of  engagements  to  Lewis,  which 


had  been  sanctified  by  receiving  the 
holy  eucharist  together  (Andr.  Ratisb. 
in  Eccard,  i.  2097  ;  Ii.  Rebdorf.  A.r>. 
1322),  while  others  suppose  that  it  may 
have  been  in  punishment  of  his  be¬ 
haviour  to  his  wife,  who  had  lost  her 
sight  through  weeping  during  his  im¬ 
prisonment,  but  on  his  liberation  was 
deserted  by  him,  and  superseded  in 
his  affections  by  a  nun  (Joh.  Vitodur. 
1793).  The  continuer  of  Martin  of 
Poland  says  that,  although  within  his 
own  territory  he  styled  himself  king, 
he  never  attempted  anything  against 
Lewis  (Eccard,  i.  1446) ;  but  docu¬ 
ments  of  1326  are  extant  in  which  he 
calls  himself  king  of  the  Romans. 
Olensl.  171-3,  and  Urk.  52. 

§  lb.  221-3  >  Schmidt,  iii  552-3. 
h  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  767. 


I  20 


JOHN,  KING  OF  BOHEMIA. 


Book  VIII. 


vasion  of  that  territory,  where  they  committed  atrocious 
cruelties  and  profanations  ;5  he  urged  the  German  princes 
to  choose  a  new  emperor;  he  declared  Germany  to  be 
under  an  interdict  so  long  as  Lewis  should  be  acknow¬ 
ledged.  A  fearful  confusion  prevailed  in  that  country, 
although,  notwithstanding  all  the  pope’s  denunciations, 
the  emperor  was  still  generally  obeyed. k  Some  of  the 
clergy,  in  obedience  to  the  interdict,  refused  to  perform 
the  Divine  offices  in  cities  where  Lewis  was,  and  on  this 
account  they  were  driven  out  by  him.1  Alliances  were 
continually  changing,  and  the  ascendency  was  always 
shifting  from  one  party  to  another.  In  these  movements 
John  of  Luxemburg  played  a  very  conspicuous  part.  At 
the  age  of  fourteen  he  had  received  the 
a.d.  1310.  ]<;ng(|om  0f  Bohemia  from  his  father,  Henry 

VII.,  as  a  fief  of  the  empire  which  had  become  vacant 
through  the  failure  of  male  heirs,  and  at  the  same  time 
he  had  married  the  younger  daughter  of  the  late  king, 
Wenceslaus — thus  excluding  Henry  duke  of  Carinthia,  the 
husband  of  her  elder  sister.m  But  he  speedily  found  that 
he  and  his  subjects  were  ill  suited  to  each  other,  and  while 
the  queen,  with  her  children,  lived  in  the  palace  at  Prague, 
John  made  his  home  in  his  hereditary  territory  of  Luxem¬ 
burg,  and  roamed  over  Europe  in  quest  of  adventures, 
visiting  Bohemia  on  rare  occasions  for  the  purpose  of 
raising  money.11  In  1330  he  was  invited  by  the  citizens 
of  Brescia  to  defend  them  against  the  Visconti  of  Milan 
and  the  Scaligers  of  Verona,  and  in  consequence  of  this 
he  proceeded  at  the  head  of  10,000  men  into  Italy;0 


1  Joh.  Vitodur.  in  Eccard,  i.  1805 ; 
Cicsel.  II.  iii.  50. 
k  H.  Rebdorff,  1333. 

1  Joh.  Vitodur.  1795-7  ;  cf.  1870. 
m  Ptol.  Luc.  in  Murat,  xi.  1233  ; 
Gcsta  Trev.  in  Martene,  Coll.  Ampl. 
iv.  390;  Joh.  Victor,  in  Bohmer,  i.  365; 
Palacky,  II.  ii.  79-83;  Bohmer,  Reg. 
279.  Some  writers  represent  Bohemia 


as  the  princess’s  portion  (Chron.  Mo- 
doet.  in  Murat,  xii.  1096  ;  Ferret.  Vic. 
1170)  ;  but  it  seems  rather  that  th6 
emperor  gave  it  to  John,  and  made  the 
marriage  for  the  sake  of  extinguishing 
any  possible  claims  on  the  female  side. 

n  Palacky,  II.  ii.  145,  153,  160,  170, 
232. 

0  Joh.  Malvec.  Chron.  Brixiense,  in 


Chav.  II.  a. d.  1330.  SUCCESSION  TO  THE  FRENCH  CROWN.  121 


where  his  intervention  was  welcomed  at  once  by  the 
Guelfs,  who  saw  in  him  a  friend  of  the  pope,  and  by  the 
Ghibellines,  who  regarded  him  as  the  son  of  Henry  VII. 
and  as  a  representative  of  the  emperor. p  His  influence 
was  beneficially  exerted  for  the  pacification  of  many  Lom¬ 
bard  cities  ;Q  but  gradually  both  parties  began  to  distrust 
him,r  so  that  he  found  himself  obliged  to  withdraw  before 
a  combination  which  was  formed  against  him  ;s  and,  after 
a  second  expedition,  in  which  he  enjoyed  the  countenance 
of  the  French  king  and  of  the  pope,  he  was  compelled 
to  retire  altogether  from  the  field  of  Italian  politics.1 

The  three  sons  of  Philip  the  Fair,  who  had  successively 
reigned  over  France,  were  all  carried  off  at  an  early  age ; 
and  while  the  clergy  saw  in  this  the  vengeance  of  heaven 
for  Philip’s  outrages  against  pope  Boniface, u  the  popular 
opinion  traced  it  to  the  martyrdom  of  the  Templars, 
and  to  the  supposed  curse  or  prophecy  of  James  de 
Molay.x 

After  the  death  of  Charles  IV.,  which  took  place  in 
January  1328,  his  widow  gave  birth  to  a  second  daughter, 


Murat,  xiv.  1001-4.  The  continuer  of 
William  of  Nangis  says  that  he  went 
rather  “  causa  curiositatis,  et  patrise 
videnda;,  quam  alia  quacunque  ra- 
tione.”  94. 

p  G.  Vill.  x.  168 ;  Olensl.  225-6  ; 
Sism.  R.  I.  iv.  86-90;  Palacky,  II.  ii. 
*77  9- 

q  G.  Vill.  x.  168,  171,  173  ;  Annal. 
Parm.  in  Pertz,  xviii.  777-9  ;  Annal. 
Mutin.  in  Murat,  xi.  125 ;  Cron. 
Sanese,  ib.  xv.  88.  There  was  a  pro¬ 
verb  that  nothing  could  be  done  with¬ 
out  the  help  of  God  and  of  the  king  of 
Bohemia.  Palacky,  II.  iii.  187. 

T  “  Papa;  et  imperatori  complacere 
cupiens,  et  ambobus  displicens.” 
Matth.  Neoburg.  124.  Cf.  Annal. 
Parm.  in  Pertz,  xviii.  776-9. 

*  Vita  Karoli  IV.  [autobiography]  in 
Bohmer,  i.  227-4§-;  G.  Vill.  x.  181  ; 


Sism.  iv.  92;  Palacky,  II.  ii.  180. 
There  is  a  papal  decree  (Baluz.  i.  704) 
of  about  this  time,  ordering  that  the 
kingdoms  of  Germany  and  Italy  shall 
be  separated,  and  shall  never  be  re 
united.  The  genuineness  of  it  has  been 
questioned  (as  by  Baluze,  1.  c.),  but  is 
regarded  as  certain  by  Gieseler,  II.  Iii, 
57- 

1  G.  Vill.  x.  211,  213  ;  Annal.  Parm. 
785-7  ;  Palacky,  II.  ii.  193-6. 

u  It  was  believed  (after  the  event) 
that  Boniface  had  prophesied  this  when 
seized  at  Anagni.  Joh.  Victor.  347. 

x  G.  Vill.  ix.  64-5  ;  Sism.  ix.  467 ; 
Martin,  iv.  569.  See  above,  p.  68.  A 
Pistoian  chronicler  suggests  a  less  au¬ 
thentic  reason — that  Philip  the  Fair  (?) 
caused  all  the  lepers  {infer ini')  of  the 
kingdom,  500  in  number,  to  be  arrested 
and  burnt  in  one  day.  Murat,  xi.  518. 


122 


rHILIP  OF  VALOIS. 


Book  VI I  r. 


who  lived  only  a  few  days;5’  and  as  the  hope  of  a  male 
heir  was  extinguished,  Philip,  the  son  of  Charles  of  Valois 
and  nephew  of  Philip  the  Fair,  became  king,  to  the 
exclusion  of  his  predecessor's  surviving  daughter.2  Philip 
of  Valois  revived  much  of  the  chivalrous  splendour  which 
had  lately  been  wanting  to  the  court  of  France  ;a  and  in 
his  ecclesiastical  policy  he  endeavoured,  like  St.  Lewis, 
to  maintain  the  rights  of  the  national  church  as  against 
the  papacy. b  When,  however,  he  proposed  a  new  cru¬ 
sade,  it  was  evident  that  the  idea  was  not  prompted  by 
a  spirit  of  self-sacrificing  devotion  like  that  which  had 
animated  his  saintly  ancestor.  He  designed,  by  placing 
himself  at  the  head  of  Christendom  in  such  an  enterprise, 
to  gain  for  himself  and  his  family  a  title  to  the  empire ; 
and  he  endeavoured  in  other  respects  to  turn  it  to  his 
own  advantage  by  obtaining  great  concessions  from  the 
pope.0  John  granted  for  the  crusade  the  tithe  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  benefices  throughout  the  whole  western  church 
for  six  years  ;d  and  in  October  1333  Philip  took  the 
cross,  and  swore  to  set  out  for  the  holy  war  within  three 
years.e  But  he  was  reminded  that  some  of  his  prede¬ 
cessors,  after  having  collected  tithes,  as  if  for  a  crusade, 
had  spent  them  on  other  objects ;  and,  whatever  his 


y  W.  Nang.  cont.  85. 
z  There  had  been  no  instance  of  a 
female  heir  to  the  crown  of  France  since 
the  accession  of  the  reigning  dynasty, 
and  it  was  now  pretended  that  the 
Salic  law  excluded  women  from  the 
throne.  This  was  unfounded,  and  was 
contrary  to  the  analogy  of  the  great 
fiefs,  which  descended  to  female  heirs  ; 
and  the  possible  fitness  of  women  for 
reigning  had  very  lately  been  shown  in 
the  case  of  the  queen-regent  Blanche, 
the  mother  of  St.  Lewis.  Edward  III. 
of  England  claimed  the  kingdom  of 
France  through  his  mother,  Isabella, 
daughter  of  Philip  the  Fair,  alleging 
that,  even  if  she  were  personally  dis¬ 
qualified  by  sex,  her  claim  would  revive 


in  her  son.  But  this  is  against  all  fair 
principle  of  succession  ;  and  moreover, 
if  inheritance  by  or  through  females 
were  admissible,  the  daughters  of  the 
last  three  kings,  and  the  sons  of  these 
princesses,  would  have  had  prior  claims 
to  Isabella  and  Edward.  See  W. 
Nang.  cont.  87 ;  Hume,  ii.  345-6 ; 
Hallam,  M.  A.  i.  42-5,  278  ;  Lingard, 
iii.  107  ;  Marlin,  iv.  563-4. 

a  Froissart,  i.  126  ;  Sism.  x.  59,  62 ; 
Martin,  v.  11-12.  b  Martin,  v.  12-13. 

c  W.  Nang.  cont.  94  ;  Rayn.  1332. 
2,  seqq. 

u  See  the  letters  of  Frederick,  abp. 
of  Salzburg,  in  Pez,  VI.  iii.  21,  seqq, 
c  W.  Nang,  cont  96  ;  Rayn.  1333. 
1,  seqq 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  132S-33.  THE  BEATIFIC  VISION. 


I23 


intentions  may  really  have  been,  circumstances  arose 
which  prevented  the  execution  of  the  project.1  When 
the  collection  of  the  tithe  was  attempted  in  Germany, 
the  emperor,  in  a  great  diet  at  Spires,  declared  that  no 
such  impost  could  be  raised  without  his  permission,  and 
hinted  his  doubts  whether  the  money  would  be  spent  for 
the  professed  object.  He  added  that,  if  peace  were 
re-established,  he  himself  would  head  an  expedition  for 
the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land ;  for  he  considered  that 
he  would  have  lived  long  enough  if  he  might  once  see 
a  pope  who  cared  for  his  soul’s  good.8  Mission  after 
mission  was  sent  to  Avignon,  but  all  brought  back  reports 
of  the  pope’s  implacable  hardness.11  The  difficulties 
which  pressed  on  the  emperor  were  so  serious  that  in 
1333  he  was  willing  to  resign  his  crown  for  the  sake  of 
restoration  to  the  communion  of  the  church ;  but  the 
plan  was  frustrated  through  the  indiscretion  of  his  cousin, 
Henry,  duke  of  Lower  Bavaria,  in  whose  favour  the 
abdication  was  intended.1 

John  XXII.,  who  had  been  so  profuse  of  accusations 
of  heresy  against  others,  himself  fell  under  a 
new  charge  of  this  kind,  by  asserting  in  a  ^an’  1333 
sermon  that  the  saints  would  not  enjoy  the  beatific  vision 
until  the  end  of  the  world ;  he  was  reported  to  have  said 
that  even  the  blessed  Virgin  herself  would  until  then 
behold  only  the  humanity,  but  not  the  God-head,  of  her 
Son.k  This  opinion,  although  agreeable  to  the  authority 


f  W.  Nang,  contin.  108 ;  G.  Vill.  x. 
196.  Matt.  Villani  (i.  75  ;  vii.  2)  says 
that  it  was  a  trick  to  get  money.  There 
is  a  story  of  a  friar  who  rebuked  the 
king  for  this  (ib.  3).  Schrockh,  xxxi. 
128  ;  Martin,  v.  23. 

e  Mutius  in  Pistor.  ii.  874;  Olensl. 
250-1. 

h  Ib.  Urk.  62-4 ;  Schrockh,  xxxi. 
123-5. 

1  Ptol.  Luc.  1212  (who  says  that  the 
kings  of  France  and  Bohemia  were 


in  favour  of  this  plan) ;  Olensl.  249  ; 
Schmidt,  iii.  562-3.  See  Bbhmer, 
Fontes,  i.  214-19. 

k  G.  Vill.  x.  228  ;  Occam  in  Goldast, 
ii.  746;  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  787-91. 
Mansi  says  that  John  can  only  be 
defended  on  the  ground  that,  although 
he  varied  from  the  doctrine  which  was 
afterwards  established,  he  was  ready  to 
accept  whatever  might  be  shown  to 
have  the  authority  of  the  church  (note 
in  Rayn.  t.  v.  568).  Herman  Corner, 


124  JOHN  XXII.  CHARGED  WITH  HERESY. 


Rook  VIII. 


of  many  early  fathers,  had  been  generally  abandoned  for 
centuries;1  it  endangered  doctrines  and  practices  which 
had  become  firmly  established  in  the  church — the  belief 
in  purgatory,  the  use  of  indulgences,  masses  for  the  dead, 
and  invocation  of  saints.  Although  the  papal  court 
in  general  acquiesced,  an  English  Dominican,  named 
Thomas  Waleys,  raised  an  alarm  by  preaching  against 
it.m  John’s  old  Franciscan  opponents,  Michael  of  Cesena, 
Bonagratia,  and  William  of  Ockham,  eagerly  raised  the 
cry  of  heresy  ; n  and  the  question  was  referred  by  king 
Philip  to  the  theological  faculty  of  Paris,  in  an  assembly 
held  at  the  palace  of  Vincennes,0  while  John  laboured 
to  influence  the  opinion  of  divines  by  heaping  preferment 
on  those  who  sided  with  him.p  At  Paris  great  excitement 
arose,  and  men  were  divided  in  their  judgment.  The 
Dominicans  opposed  the  pope’s  view;'!  the  general  of 
the  Franciscans,  who  had  superseded  Michael  of  Cesena, 
supported  it ;  the  doctors  of  the  Sorbonne  condemned 
the  doctrine,  but  suggested  that  John  might  have  pro¬ 
pounded  it  only  by  way  of  a  doubt  or  a  question.1"  The 
king  is  said  to  have  threatened  not  only  the  Franciscan 
general,  but  the  pope  himself,  with  the  punishment  of 


after  relating  that  a  treasure  belonging 
to  John  was  seized  by  the  imperialists 
on  its  way  to  Lombardy,  says  that  the 
pope  “jam  senio  confectus  desipuit, 
partim  ex  senio  et  partim  ex  melan¬ 
cholia,  eo  quod  tantum  thesaurum  per- 
didisset.”  1041. 

1  Rayn.  1534.  27,  seqq.;  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  59- 

m  Olensl.  252  ;  W.  Nang.  cont.  96  ; 
Henr.  Hervord.  251-2  ;  D’Argentrd,  i. 
315  ;  Thorn  in  Twysden,  2067  ;  Giesel. 
1.  c.  ;  Milm.  v.  313.  Waleys  was  im¬ 
prisoned  for  a  while,  and  was  put  on 
short  allowance  of  food.  D’Argentre, 
1.  c. 

n  Rayn.  1334.  32,  seqq.  See  Ft.  ii. 
of  Ockham’s  '  Dialogus,’  and  his 
‘  Compendium  Errorum  ’  (written  after 


John’s  death),  in  Gold.  ii.  970.  Durand 
of  St.  Pourgain,  bishop  of  Meaux,  also 
wrote  against  John.  Ealuz.  V.  P.  Ayen. 
i.  183 ;  H.  Hervord.  255. 

0  W.  Nang.  cont.  97. 
p  G.  Vill.  x.  228. 

Gualv.  della  Fiamma  notices  this 
as  remarkable,  after  John  had  pro¬ 
moted  122  members  of  the  order  to 
bishopricks.  1006. 

r  “Non  asserendo  vel  opinando,  sed 
solummodo  recitando.”  D’Argentrd, 
i.  317  ;  cf.  G.  Vill.  1.  c.  ;  W.  Nang, 
cont.  96;  Mansi,  xxv.  981  ;  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  60;  Milm.  v.  3x6;  Letter  of  the 
Paris  doctors  in  Mart.  Thes.  i.  1383 ; 
D’Argentrd,  i.  316,  seqq. ;  Eul.  iv.  236, 
seqq. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1333-4. 


IilS  DEATH. 


12 


c 

0 


heresy,  and  made  use  of  John’s  danger  to  extort  im¬ 
portant  concessions  from  him ; 3  while  the  Italian  car¬ 
dinals,  in  their  dislike  of  a  French  pope,  threatened  to 
bring  him  before  a  general  council.6  John  offered  to 
produce  ancient  authorities  in  his  behalf,  but  was  glad 
to  avail  himself  of  the  escape  which  the  doctors  of  Paris 
had  suggested,  and  declared  that  he  had  intended  only 
to  state  the  opinion,  not  to  decide  in  favour  of  it.u 
But  the  excitement  burst  out  afresh,  and  at  last  John, 
on  his  death-bed,  was  brought — it  is  said  chiefly  by  the 
urgency  of  his  nephew  or  son,  cardinal  Bertrand  de 
Poyetx — to  profess  the  current  doctrine,  “that  purged 
souls,  being  separated  from  their  bodies,  are  in  heaven, 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  paradise;  that  they  see  God 
face  to  face,  and  clearly  behold  the  Divine  essence,  in  so 
far  as  the  condition  of  separate  souls  permits.” y 

On  the  day  after  having  made  this  declaration,  John 
died,  at  the  age  of  ninety.  The  treasures 
which  he  left  behind  him  were  enormous,2 
partly  the  produce  of  exactions  raised  under  the  pretext 
of  a  crusade, a  partly  of  the  arts  of  the  papal  court  as  to 
the  disposal  of  preferments  and  favours.  In  these  arts 
John  showed  himself  a  master.  Under  the  pretence  of 
discouraging  simony,  he  kept  valuable  reseives  in  his 
own  hands.b  By  the  bull  Execrabilis ,  he  compelled 
pluralists  to  give  up  all  but  one  benefice  each,  and  got 


Dec.  4,  1334. 


*  G.  Vill.  I.  c. ;  Letter  of  John  to  the 
king,  Rayn.  1333.  46. 

*  Giesel.  II.  iii.  61. 

u  “  Recitando  et  conferendo,  et  non 
determinando,  nec  etiam  tenendo.” 
D’Argentre,  i.  320  ;  Mansi,  xxv.  984  ; 
G.  Vill.  1.  c.  ;  Ptol.  Luc.  in  Murat,  xi. 
1212  ;  Hefele,  vi.  523-4.  St.  Antoninus 
says  that,  even  if  the  opinion  were  here¬ 
tical,  John  was  not  a  heretic,  as  he  did 
not  maintain  it  obstinately,  iii.  334. 

1  See  Ciacon.11. 409.  Rinaldidenies 
the  alleged  parentage.  1334.  40. 


y  Mansi,  xxv.  569  ;  G.  Vill.  xi.  19 ; 
Mosh.  ii.  654.  The  story  of  the  retrac¬ 
tation  was  questioned,  however.  See 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  61. 

z  John  Villani,  on  the  information  of 
his  brother,  who,  as  a  merchant,  had 
been  concerned  in  counting  pope  John’s 
wealth,  says  that  the  money  amounted 
to  eighteen,  and  the  plate  and  jewels 
to  seven,  millions  of  gold  florins,  xi.  20. 

a  “E forsehavea  quella  intenzione,” 
says  Villani,  1.  c.  b  lb. 


126 


JOHN  XXII. 


Book  VIII. 


for  himself  the  disposal  of  the  rest.c  He  took  into  his 
own  hands  the  appointment  of  bishops,  in  disregard  of 
the  capitular  right  of  election,*3  which  had  been  so  hardly 
extorted  from  sovereigns.  Whenever  any  high  prefer¬ 
ment  fell  vacant,  he  made  it  the  means  of  promoting  the 
greatest  possible  number  of  persons,  advancing  each  of 
them  a  single  step,  and  so  securing  the  payment  of  fees 
from  each.e  And  to  the  exactions  which  already  pressed 
on  the  church,  he  added  the  invention  of  annates — the 
first  year’s  income  of  ecclesiastical  dignities/  Yet  al¬ 
though  his  long  pontificate  was  chiefly  remarkable  for 
the  unrelenting  hostility  with  which  he  pursued  the 
emperor  Lewis,  and  for  the  extortions  and  corruptions 
by  which  he  so  largely  profited,  it  must  in  justice  be 
added  that  he  is  described  as  temperate  in  his  habits, 
regular  in  the  observances  of  devotion,  and  unassuming 
and  unostentatious  in  his  manner  of  life.g 

At  the  time  of  John’s  death,  the  college  of  cardinals 
consisted  of  twenty-four  members,  among  whom  the 
French,  headed  by  Talleyrand  of  Perigord,11  had  a  great 
majority.3  Both  Frenchmen  and  Italians,  however,  agreed 
to  choose  the  cardinal  of  Comminges,  bishop  of  Porto,  if 
he  would  pledge  himself  that  the  papal  residence  should 


c  Extrav.  tit.  iii.  ‘De  Praebendis  et 
Dignitatibus.” 

d  Muratori,  Annal.  VIII.  i.  249 ; 
Schrockh,  xxxi.  127.  *  G.  Vill.  xi.  20. 

f  Schrockh,  xxxi.  130.  See  below, 
chap.  xi.  i.  4.  *  lb.  129. 

h  For  this  bearer  of  a  name  which  has 
been  again  famous  in  late  times,  see 
Baluz.  Vit.  Pap.  Aven.  i.  770;  Ciacon. 
ii.  430.  He  was  son  of  the  count  of 
Perigord  by  his  wife  Brunisenda,  the 
supposed  mistress  of  Clement  V.  (see  p. 
11).  It  is  said  that  he  had  been  mar¬ 
ried  before  taking  holy  orders,  and  had 
been  a  very  popular  advocate.  But, 
although  he  had  a  good  patrimony,  and 
received  large  fees,  he  was  always  in 


want  of  money ;  whence  he  concluded, 
on  considering  the  matter,  that  his 
practice  of  pleading  for  money  was 
wrong.  He  thereupon  resolved  to  un¬ 
dertake  no  other  than  just  causes,  and 
to  work  for  charity  alone  ;  and  he  soon 
found  himself  abundantly  rich.  (Gesta 
Abbat.  S.  Albani,  ii.  384.)  He  is 
highly  eulogized  in  the  Hist.  Litt.  de 
la  France,  xxiv.  39.  For  his  will,  see 
Martene,  Thes.  i.  1468.  He  died  in 
1364.  Ciacon.  1.  c. 

*  G.  Vill.  xi.  21.  John  had  com¬ 
plained  to  the  king,  in  133Z,  that  the 
French  were  17  out  of  20,  yet  after¬ 
wards  found  himself  obliged  to  add  to 
their  number,  Rayn.  1331.  33-4. 


Chap.  II,  a.d.  1334. 


BENEDICT  XXII. 


127 


Dec.  30,  1334. 


not  be  removed  from  Avignon  ;  but  he  refused  to  comply 
with  this  condition,  and  the  cardinals,  shut  up  in  the 
palace  of  Avignon  by  an  officer  of  king  Robert  of  Naples, 
began  afresh  the  usual  intricate  manoeuvres  of  a  papal 
election.11  By  an  unforeseen  concurrence  of  circumstances, 
the  result  of  which  was  considered  to  be  a  divine  in¬ 
spiration,1  their  choice  fell  on  James  Fournier,  a  member 
of  the  Cistercian  order,  cardinal  of  St.  Prisca  and  bishop 
of  Mirepoix,  whose  remark  on  the  announcement  of  his 
new  dignity  was,  “  You  have  chosen  an  ass.”  The  new 
pope,  Benedict  XII., m  was  a  native  of  Saver- 
dun,  in  the  country  of  Foix,  and  had  risen 
from  a  humble  condition  in  life.n  He  was  highly  re¬ 
spected  for  his  .learning,  and,  notwithstanding  his  modest 
estimate  of  himself,  was  a  man  of  sense  and  judgment.0 
He  is  praised  for  his  sincerity,  his  justice,  his  liberality 
in  almsgiving^  and  his  benevolence  of  character ;  while 
his  orthodoxy  had  been  displayed  by  his  activity  as  an 
inquisitor  in  his  own  diocese  and  throughout  the  region 
of  Toulouse. q  Disinclined  to  share  in  political  affairs, r 
he  was  earnestly  bent  on  a  reform  in  the  church,  and  in 
order  to  this  he  reversed  in  many  respects  the  system  of 
his  predecessors.  The  crowds  which,  in  hope  of  prefer¬ 
ment,  had  thronged  the  city  of  the  papal  residence,  the 
idle  and  greedy  friars  who  hung  about  the  court,  were 
dismissed  to  their  own  homes.s  A  reform  of  the  monastic 
system  was  strenuously  taken  in  hand.1  The  abuse  of 


x  G.  VII! .  1.  c. 

1  lb. ;  Hist.  Rom.  Fragm.  in  Murat. 
Antiq.  Ital.  iii.  275. 

m  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  197;  G.  VilL 
L  c. 

n  St.  Antoninus  calls  him  “  infimae 
conditions  insajculo”  (iii.  332).  His 
father  is  commonly  described  as  a 
baker  or  a  miller  (Matth.  Neoburg. 
125)  ;  but  for  this  it  is  said  that  there  is 
n.o  ground  except  the  family  surname 
(Hist.  Langued.  iv.  215).  A  curious 


story  as  to  his  elevation  being  fore¬ 
shown  is  told  by  Matth.  Neoburg.  1.  c. 

0  G.  Vill.  1.  c.  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  62. 
See  Olensl.  321. 

f  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  213  ;  Matth. 
Neoburg.  125. 

<1  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  213,  229. 
r  lb.  198,  214. 

8  Ptol.  Luc.  in  Murat,  xi.  1214  ;  Ba 
luz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  251 ;  Vita  V.  p.  233. 

*  See  Wilkins,  ii.  585-621  ;  J.  Vito- 
dur.  1821.  H.  Hervord.  263. 


BENEDICT  XII. 


Book  VIII. 


128 


commendams  was  done  away  with,  except  only  in  the 
case  of  such  as  were  held  by  cardinals.11  Pluralities  were 
steadily  discouraged. x  Expectancies  of  benefices  not 
yet  vacant  were  abolished,  and  such  as  had  been  already 
granted  were  revoked. y  The  late  pope’s  custom  of  multi¬ 
plying  promotions  on  every  vacancy  was  abandoned. 
All  practices  which  might  appear  to  savour  of  simony 
were  forbidden.  It  was  ordered  that  no  canonries  in 
cathedrals  should  be  bestowed  on  boys  under  fourteen 
years  of  age,2  and  all  applicants  for  the  pope’s  patronage 
were  examined  as  to  their  fitness. a  Preferments  were 
given  to  men  of  learning,  without  solicitation,  and 
although  they  did  not  frequent  the  court.b  The  pope 
withstood  the  entreaties  of  great  men,  who  attempted 
to  influence  his  patronage ;  and  he  was  careful  not  to 
favour  his  own  relatives  unduly.0  He  refused  great 
matches  for  his  niece,  whom  he  married  to  a  merchant 
of  Toulouse,  with  a  dowry  not  more  than  suitable  to  the 
husband's  condition;  and  when  the  pair  visited  his  court, 
in  the  hope  of  favour,  he  told  them  that  as  James  Fournier 
he  knew  them,  but  that  as  pope  he  had  no  kindred;  that 
he  could  only  give  them  his  blessing,  with  payment  of  the 
expenses  of  their  journey. d  One  nephew  alone  obtained 
high  office  in  the  church,  having  been  urgently  recom¬ 
mended  by  the  cardinals  for  the  archbishoprick  of  Arles.0 
The  officials  of  the  court  were  required  to  swear  that  they 
would  not  accept  any  gifts. f  The  messengers  who  con- 


u  G.  Vill.  1.  c.  :  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven. 
L  198.  *  lb.  230. 

y  lb.  z  lb.  231. 

*  lb.  ;  Hist.  Rom.  Fragm.  in  Murat. 
Antiq.  iii.  277. 
b  Baluz.  109,  231. 

0  “  Huic  autem  sanguis  et  caro  non 
revelavitamorem.”  Ib.  219;  cf.  Rayn. 
1338  82.  This  was  partly  in  order  that 
he  might  keep  himself  independent  of 
the  king.  Matth.  Neob.  125. 


d  Baluze,  210-n,  219. 
e  Ib.  210.  “Non  improbo  tamen,” 
says  Platina,  “eos  qui  ob  cognationem 
et  affinitatem  ad  summos  dignitatis 
gradus  eriguntur,  si  tanta  conditione 
digni  sunt.”  258. 

1  Matth.  Neob.  231.  There  is  a  letter 
from  Benedict  to  a  collector  sent  into 
England,  desiring  him  to  report  as  to 
the  alleged  misbehaviour  of  former 
collectors.  Theiner,  2C7. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1334-42. 


BENEDICT  XII. 


I29 


veyed  the  papal  letters  were  bound  in  like  manner  neither 
to  ask  nor  to  receive  anything  beyond  food  and  other  neces- 
saries.g  The  pope  moderated  the  expenses  of  episcopal 
visitations,  which  had  long  been  a  subject  of  complaint  ;h 
and  he  caused  a  visitation  of  cathedrals  to  be  undertaken 
by  commissioners,  who  corrected  such  irregularities  as 
they  discovered,1  Yet,  great  as  Benedict’s  merits  were, 
he  has  not  escaped  serious  imputations.  His  desire  to 
purify  the  administration  of  the  church  and  the  monastic 
orders  appears  to  have  been  too  little  tempered  by  courtesy 
or  by  discretion,  so  that  it  excited  much  animosity,  which 
has  left  its  lasting  traces  in  the  chronicles  of  the  times. 
Petrarch  speaks  unfavourably  of  him  in  more  than  one 
place,  and  mentions  especially  that  excessive  love  of  the 
pleasures  of  the  table  which  is  said  to  have  given  rise  to  the 
saying,  “  Let  us  drink  like  a  pope.”k  And  a  biographer, 
whose  enmity  would  seem  to  have  been  provoked  by  Bene¬ 
dict’s  avowed  dislike  of  the  mendicant  orders,  charges  him 
with  avarice  and  with  harshness  of  character,  with  negli¬ 
gence  in  some  parts  of  his  duty  as  to  administration,  and 
with  a  general  distrust  and  ill  opinion  of  mankind.1 


6  Wadding,  1335.  2. 
h  Mansi,  xxv.  987. 

1  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  233. 
k  “Bibamus  papaliter”  (Vita  VIII. 
in  Baluz.  i.  241).  “Comestor  maximus 
et  potator  egregius,”  says  Gualvaneo 
Fiamma  (Murat,  xii.  1009),  who  felt  as 
a  Dominican  towards  Benedict  (see 
Murat.  Annal.  VIII.  ii.  9).  Petrarch 
tells  us  that  Benedict,  on  receiving  a 
present  of  eels  from  the  Lake  of  Bolsena 
(see  vol.  vi.  p.  288),  distributed  all  but 
a  few  among  the  cardinals,  and  that 
when  these  afterwards  praised  the  fish, 
he  said,  “  Si  praegustassem,  seivissem- 
que  quales  erant,  non  fuissem  tarn 
largus  distributor ;  sed  nunquam  cre- 
didi  tale  quid  nasci  posse  in  Italia  ” 
(p.  904).  Elsewhere  he  calls  the  pope 
“  potorem  ilium  et  senio  et  sopore  et 

VOL.  VII. 


mero  gravidum”  (p.  809) — “vino  ma- 
didus,  sevo  gravis,  ac  soporifero  rore 
perfusus.”  (Ep.  sine  Titulo,  i.  1  ;  see 
Gibbon,  vi.  215  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  223.) 
It  has  been  asserted  that  Benedict 
seduced  the  poet  s  sister,  and  made  her 
his  concubine  ;  but  the  story  is  said  to 
be  unfounded  (Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i. 
815 ;  Milm.  v.  329).  The  Seventh  Life, 
in  Baluze’s  collection,  ends  with  a  quo¬ 
tation— 

“  Iste  fuit  Nero,  laicis  mors,  vipera  clero, 
Devius  a  vero,  cuppa  repleta  mero.” 

The  same  is  quoted  by  the  Dominican 
Henry  of  Hervorden,  who  says  that 
the  pope  died  “  perpaucis  dolentibus.” 
265. 

1  Vita  VIII.  in  Baluz.  i.  240.  Cf. 
829.  “  Hie  justus  et  durus  erat." 

Ta.  Niem,  in  Eccard,  i.  1499. 

9 


13° 


BENEDICT  XII. 


Book  VIII. 


Benedict’s  virtues  were  also  marred  by  a  want  of 
courage,  which  prevented  him  from  carrying  out  his 
wish  to  deliver  himself  from  the  thraldom  of  king  Philip, 
and  from  the  oppressive  influence  of  the  French  cardi¬ 
nals.111  And,  when  he  attempted  to  prepare  the  way  for 
a  return  to  Rome,  or  at  least  to  Bologna,  where  the  foun¬ 
dations  of  a  palace  had  been  laid  by  the  legate  Bertrand 
de  Poyet,”  he  was  deterred  by  the  manifestations  of  an 
antipapal  spirit,  by  the  dangers  of  the  way,  and  by  other 
such  considerations.0  He  therefore,  as  if  to  guarantee 
the  continuance  of  the  papal  residence  at  Avignon, 
began  the  vast  and  costly  structure  which  still  remains 
as  the  chief  monument  of  it ;  p  but  at  the  same  time  he 
showed  his  interest  in  the  ancient  capital  of  Christendom, 
by  spending  large  sums  on  renewing  the  roof  of  St. 
Peter's,  and  on  repairing  other  churches  and  palaces  at 
Rome.1  He  accepted  the  office  of  senator,  to  which  he 
was  elected  by  the  Romans  in  1337  ;  he  forbade  the  use 
of  the  terms  Guelf  and  Ghibelline,r  as  being  continual 
sources  of  discord,3  and  he  endeavoured  to  keep  up  a 
semblance  of  influence  in  Italy,  by  investing  some  party 
chiefs  with  the  character  of  vicars  under  the  apostolic  see.1 


m  Giesel.  II.  iii.  63 ;  Milm.  v.  320 
Dellinger  says  that  by  adding  to  the 
number  of  French  cardinals  he  riveted 
his  chains  faster,  and  brought  on  the 
fulfilment  of  Joachim’s  prophecy  that 
the  papacy  would  find  France  a  reed 
that  would  pierce  its  hand  (ii.  265). 
See  note  there  against  Raynaldus  and 
Pagi. 

11  G.Vill.  x.  199-200;  Hist.  Pistol.  454. 

0  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  199.  The 
Bolognese  had  expelled  the  legate, 
lb.;  G.  Vill.  x.  1-7;  Hist.  Rom.  Fragm. 
in  Murat.  Antiq.  iii.  271  ;  Hist.  Pistol. 
461-7  ;  Gualv.  Fiamma,  1008 ;  Cron. 
Bologn.  in  Murat,  xviii.  39 ;  Rayn. 
1337-  27>  seqq. 

p  Baluz.  215  ;  Martin,  v.  25.  The 


cardinals  hereupon  began  to  erect  dns- 
titep  for  themselves  (lb.  202).  Ptolemy 
of  Lucca  says  that  he  built  the  great 
tower  “  qua;  etiamad  sui  similitudinem 
magna  et  quadrata  existit.”  (Murat, 
xi.  1216.)  Platina  says  that  Benedict 
intended  to  employ  Giotto  (“  Jotum, 
pictorem  ilia  a;tate  celebrem”)  in  paint¬ 
ing  his  palace  with  the  histories  of 
martyrs.  258. 

1  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  199,  206,  219 ; 
Ptol.  Luc.  1214.  In  the  Fragments  of 
Roman  History  (Murat.  Antiq.  iii. 
277-9)  *s  a  curious  account  of  the  break¬ 
ing  up  of  the  old  roof  of  St.  Peter’s. 

1  Gregorov.  vi.  197. 

•  Henr.  Hervord.  256. 

*  Gregorov.  vi.  218. 


Chap.  II.  a. d.  1335-6.  BENEDICT  AND  PHILIP  VI.  131 

Philip,  however,  notwithstanding  his  ascendency,  was 
not  able  to  gain  all  that  he  desired  from  Benedict. 
When  he  asked  the  newly-elected  pope  to  make  over 
to  him  the  treasures  of  John  XXII.,  and  to  bestow  on 
him  the  ecclesiastical  tithe  for  ten  years — professedly 
with  a  view  to  a  crusade,  but  in  reality  for  the  war  into 
which  he  had  been  drawn  with  England — Benedict 
replied  that  his  predecessor’s  wealth,  having  been  col¬ 
lected  for  the  crusade,  must  not  be  given  up  until  that 
expedition  was  actually  begun;  and  he  withdrew  the 
grant  of  tenths  which  John  had  previously  sanctioned.11 
It  was  in  vain  that  the  king  asked  the  vicariate  of  Italy 
for  himself,  and  the  kingdom  of  Vienne  for  his  son;x  and 
when  he  went  to  Avignon,  for  the  purpose  of  ^ 
urging  his  suit  as  to  the  pretended  crusade,  1 
the  pope  declared  that,  if  he  had  two  souls,  he  would 
gladly  sacrifice  one  of  them  for  the  king ;  but  that,  as  he 
had  only  one,  he  must  endeavour  to  save  it.y 

The  controversy  which  John  XXII.  had  raised  as  to 
the  Beatific  Vision,  and  in  the  discussion  of 
which  Benedict  had  formerly  taken  a  con-^an'  29, 
spicuous  part,2  was  now  determined  by  him  in  a  formal 
decree,  which  declared  that  the  glory  of  the  saints  is 
perfect;  that  they  already  enjoy  the  vision  of  the 
blessed  Trinity ;  and  that,  although  they  will  have  their 
perfect  consummation  in  body  and  in  soul  after  the 
judgment-day,  the  joy  of  their  souls  will  not  be  sensibly 
increased.3 

The  pope,  both  from  natural  character  and  from  alarm 
at  the  French  king’s  inordinate  requests,  was  heartily 
desirous  of  peace  with  the  emperor  Lewis,  and  with  a 

u  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  200-1 ;  Olensl.  x  Rayn.  1333.  59,  seqq. 

254-  *  Mansi,  xxv.  989  ;  Baluz.  V.  P. 

x  Matth.  Neob.  125 ;  Olensl.  1.  c.  Aven.  i.  216,  222-4.  Some  thought 

y  Baluz.  V.  P  Aven.  i.  21 1 ;  Planck,  this  decision  heretical.  Rayn.  1334.  35, 

v.  283-4.  seqq.;  1336.  4-16;  G.  Vill.  xi.  47. 


i32 


BENEDICT  XII. 


Book  VIII. 


view  to  this  made  overtures,  both  indirectly  and  directly, 
April— Oct.  to  him.b  Lewis,  on  his  part,  sent  a  fifth  and 
a  sixth  embassy  to  Avignon,  with  offers  of 
submission;  but  the  influence  of  France,  of  Naples,  and 
of  Bohemia,  with  that  of  the  cardinals,  whose  property 
Philip  had  threatened  to  confiscate  if  they  made  peace 
with  the  Bavarian,0  prevailed  over  the  pope’s  favourable 
dispositions.*1  Yet  he  made  no  secret  of  his  real  feeling. 
Thus,  on  one  occasion,  when  urged  by  the  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  French  and  the  Neapolitan  kings,  he  asked 
whether  they  wished  to  do  away  with  the  empire.  On 
their  answering  that  they  did  not  speak  against  the 
empire,  but  against  Lewis,  who  had  been  condemned  as 
an  enemy  of  the  church, — “  Rather,”  said  Benedict,  “it 
is  we  that  have  sinned  against  him.  He  would,  if  he 
might  have  been  allowed,  have  come  with  a  staff  in  his 
hand  to  our  predecessor’s  feet ;  but  he  has  been  in  a 
manner  challenged  to  act  as  he  has  done.”e  The 
emperor’s  sixth  embassy,  in  October  1336,  was  autho¬ 
rized  to  offer  very  humiliating  terms :  to  confess  that  he 
had  done  grievous  wrong  in  setting  up  an  antipope,  in 
his  alliances  with  the  Visconti,  with  the  rebellious  mino- 
rites  (whose  opinions  he  disavowed),  with  John  of 
Jandun  and  Marsilius,  by  whom  he  professed  to  have 
been  deceived  and  misled.  The  ambassadors  professed 
that  he  was  ready  to  submit  to  penance,  to  lay  down 
the  imperial  title,  to  persecute  heretics,  to  build  churches 
and  convents,  if  the  pope  would  release  him  from  ex- 
communication  and  interdict,  and  would  grant  him 
the  empire  anew.1  But  they  became  weary  of  waiting 
for  an  answer,  and  Lewis,  despairing  of  any  satisfactory 

Matth.  Neoburg.  126 ;  Baluz.  V.  1842-3;  H.  Rebdorff,  1337;  Rayn. 
P.  Aven.  i.  198  ;  Olensl.  256  ;  Giesel.  I335.  7  ;  Olensl.  256-7. 

II-  63-  6  Matth.  Neob.  126;  Olensl.  259. 

c  Matth.  Neob.  126  ;  Olensl.  259.  f  Rayn.  I336.  3Ij  seqq. 

d  Matth.  Neob.  127  ;  Joh.  Vitodur. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1336-8. 


AND  LEWIS  IV. 


133 


result  so  long  as  the  French  king’s  influence  should  be 
exerted  against  him,  declined  an  invitation  to  resume 
negotiations,  and  allied  himself  with  Edward  of  England, 
who  had  now  set  up  that  claim  to  the  crown  of  France 
which  for  a  century  and  a  half  arrayed  the  two  nations 
in  deadly  hostility  to  each  other.g  Benedict’s  warnings 
to  Edward  against  entering  into  a  connexion  with  an 
excommunicated  person  were  unheeded,  although  the 
king  professed  all  dutiful  submission  to  the  papal  autho¬ 
rity,  and  said  that  he  had  advised  Lewis  to  make  his 
peace  by  humbling  himself. h 

Another  mission — the  seventh — in  behalf  of  Lewis^ 
was  sent  to  Avignon  by  the  archbishop  of  Mentz,  Henry 
of  Virneburg,  and  his  suffragans,  after  a  council  held  at 
Spires.*  The  pope  is  said  to  have  had  tears  in  his  eyes 
as  he  told  the  envoys  that  he  could  not  grant  absolution 
to  Lewis,  in  consequence  of  his  breach  of  treaties  with 
France  ;  that  Philip  had  threatened  him  with  a  worse 
fate  than  that  of  Boniface  VIII.,  if  the  Bavarian  should 
be  absolved  without  the  French  king’s  consent ;  and  that 
he  could  hold  no  communication  with  the  archbishop  of 
Mentz,  who  had  given  great  offence  by  a  compact 
which  he  had  lately  made  with  his  chapter,  in  order  to 
obtain  admission  to  his  see.k 

The  Germans  were  indignant  that  their  requests  should 
thus  be  rejected  at  the  dictation  of  a  foreign  sovereign, 
and  that  pretensions  should  be  set  up  which  seemed  to 
transfer  the  right  of  the  electors  to  the  pope.1  In  reli- 


s  Joh.  Vitodur.  1844;  Rymer,  ii.  991; 
Pauli,  ‘  Bilder  aus  Alt-England,’  No. 
v.  The  emperor  asked  Edward  to  go 
with  him  to  Avignon.  Rymer,  1.  c. 

h  Rymer,  ii.  1004  ;  Rayn.  1337.  7 ; 
1139.  ir,  seqq. ;  Olensl.  270-3 ;  Schmidt, 
iii.  577-9  ;  Pauli,  iv.  340.  See  Baluz. 
i.  804,  against  the  story  of  Edward’s 
having  prevented  some  papal  envoys 
from  coming  to  England. 


1  Olensl.  Urk.  66.  The  date  is  March 
27>  1338. 

k  Matth.  Neoburg.  127  ;  Olensl.  276- 
7.  H  enry  had  been  appointed  by  J ohn 
XXII.  in  contempt  of  the  capitular 
right  of  election,  and,  having  been  be¬ 
fore  opposed  to  Lewis,  had  been  gained 
over  to  his  side.  Matt.  Neob.  127,135  ; 
Olensl.  274-5  J  Schrockh,  xxxi.  144-5. 

1  Olensl.  278  ;  Schmidt,  iii.  580. 


134  MEETINGS  AT  FRANKFORT  AND  RHENSE.  Book  VIII. 


ance  on  this  feeling,  Lewis  summoned  a  great  diet,  con¬ 
sisting  not  only  of  princes  and  nobles,  but  of  deputies 
from  cities  and  cathedral  chapters,  to  meet  at  Frankfort 
on  Rogation  Sunday,  1338.  Before  this  assembly  Lewis 
stated,  in  a  pathetic  tone,  the  course  of  his  dealings  with 
the  papal  see,  and  the  pretensions  which  had  been  set 
up  for  the  papacy  in  derogation  of  the  imperial  dignity ; 
and  in  proof  of  his  orthodoxy  he  recited  the  Lord’s 
prayer,  the  angelic  salutation,  and  the  creed.  The  case 
was  argued  on  his  behalf  by  lawyers  and  canonists, 
especially  by  the  famous  Franciscan,  Bonagratia ;  and 
the  assembly  resolved  that  the  emperor  had  done  enough, 
that  the  censures  uttered  against  him  were  wrongful,  and 
therefore  of  no  effect ;  that  the  clergy  ought  not  to 
observe  the  papal  interdict,  and  that,  if  unwilling  to 
celebrate  the  Divine  offices,  they  should  be  compelled 
to  do  so.m 

On  the  15th  of  July  the  electors,  with  the  exception 
of  the  king  of  Bohemia,  held  a  meeting  at  Rhense,n  where 
they  expressed  their  apprehensions  that,  if  the  papal 
claims  were  admitted,  they  might  in  future  have  to 
choose  only  a  king — not  an  emperor.  They  resolved 
that  the  empire  was  held  immediately  under  God  ;  that 
the  emperor,  chosen  by  all  the  electors,  or  by  a  majority 
of  them,  needed  no  confirmation  from  the  pope  ;  and 
they  swore  to  defend  the  dignity  of  the  empire  and  their 
own  rights  against  all  men,  and  to  accept  no  dispensation 


,n  Joh.  Vitodur.  1846-7  (whose  ac¬ 
count  of  the  effect  on  the  clergy  is 
remarkable);  Olensl.  280-1. 

n  This  meeting  is  known  as  the  first 
Union  of  Electors  ( Churverein ). 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  67.  Although  Rhense, 
on  the  Rhine,  between  Boppart  and 
Coblentz,  is  described  as  immemorially 
a  place  of  meeting  for  the  German 
electors,  the  first  distinct  mention  of  it 
as  such  is  in  connexion  with  the  elec¬ 


tion  of  Henry  VII.  Its  situation, 
within  the  territory  of  the  archbishop 
of  Cologne,  was  convenient  as  being 
near  the  frontiers  of  the  other  three 
Rhenish  electors.  The  Konigstuhl 
was  erected  by  Charles  IV.  in  1376, 
and  there  is  a  view  of  it  in  Oleuslager’s 
book  (p.  422).  Having  fallen  into  ruin 
under  the  French  domination,  it  was 
restored  in  1844.  Murray’s  Handbook  ; 
Badeker,  *  Rheinlande.’ 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1338.  LEWIS  AND  EDWARD  III.  1 35 


from  their  oath.  These  resolutions  were  confirmed  by 
a  diet  held  at  Frankfort,  and  several  docu- 
ments  were  drawn  up  by  which  the  late 
pope’s  processes  against  Lewis  were  pronounced  to  be 
null,  and  pope  Benedict  was  requested  to  withdraw 
them,  while  the  emperor  appealed  against  John  to  a 
general  council.  It  was  declared  that  the  vicariate  of  the 
empire,  during  a  vacancy  of  the  throne,  belonged  not  to 
the  pope  but  to  the  count  palatine  of  the  Rhine  ;  that 
the  oath  taken  by  emperors  was  not  one  of  fealty  to  the 
pope ;  and  it  was  forbidden  to  receive  papal  bulls  without 
the  sovereign’s  permission.0 

A  great  excitement  followed  in  Germany.  While  the 
imperialists  posted  on  church-doors  manifestoes  annulling 
the  papal  sentences,  the  papalists  placarded  copies  of 
those  sentences,  and  denunciations  against  all  who  should 
hold  intercourse  with  the  excommunicated  Lewis.1’  The 
clergy  and  monks  who  observed  the  interdict  were  driven 
out,  and  their  property  was  confiscated ;  many  of  them 
went  to  Avignon,  but,  as  their  distress  found  no  relief 
there,  some  returned  to  Germany  and  submitted  to  the 
emperor.q  Each  party  defended  itself  by  the  pen  ;  and 
on  the  imperial  side  the  most  conspicuous  writers  were 
William  of  Ockham r  and  Leopold  of  Bebenburg,  who 
afterwards  became  bishop  of  Bamberg.s 

In  September  1338  the  emperor  held  a  meeting  with 
the  king  of  England  at  Coblentz.  The  importance  of  the 
occasion  was  marked  by  a  great  display  of  splendour  on 
both  sides.  Each  of  the  sovereigns  set  forth  his  causes  of 
complaint  against  Philip  of  France;  an  intimate  alliance 


0  Olensl.  Urk.  67,  70 ;  pp.  282-8  ; 
Matth.  Neoburg.  129  ;  Schmidt,  iv. 
583;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  67.  Some  docu¬ 
ments  connected  with  this  affair  are 
said  to  be  questionable.  See  Hefele, 
v.  S59- 

p  Olensl  284-6.  ‘t  lb.  288-9. 


r  *  Compendium  Errorum  Papas,’  in 
Goldast,  ii.  957,  seqq. 

8  “De  Juribus  Regni  et  Imperii 
Romani  ”  [addressed  to  Abp.  Baldwin 
of  Treves],  in  Schard,  Syntagma, 
Argent.  1609,  pp.  167,  seqq.  See 
Gieseler,  II.  iii.  69. 


136 


LEWIS  AND  EDWARD  III. 


Book  VIII. 


was  concluded,  and  was  confirmed  by  oath,  and  Edward 
was  appointed  vicar  of  the  empire  over  the  territories 
westward  of  Cologne.1  Yet  notwithstanding  the  solem¬ 
nity  of  his  compact  with  Edward,  from  whom  he  received 
large  subsidies,11  the  emperor  allowed  himself  to  be  soon 
after  enticed, — chiefly  through  the  influence  of  the 
countess  of  Hainault,  who  was  at  once  his  own  mother- 
in-law  and  Philip’s  sister, — into  making  an 
A  D*  1339  4°’  alliance  with  the  French  king ;  an  incon¬ 
stancy  which  can  only  be  explained  by  supposing  that 
he  was  sincerely  disquieted  in  conscience  by  the  papal 
excommunications,  and  that  he  wished  tc  secure  Philip’s 
intercession  with  the  pope.x  But  although  Philip  affected 
to  mediate,  the  faintness  of  his  interest  in  the  matter  was 
too  manifest,  and  Benedict  looked  with  no  favour  on 
such  an  alliance  between  the  sovereign  whom  the  holy 
see  had  regarded  as  its  especial  favourite,  and  him  who 
had  been  the  object  of  its  most  terrible  condemnations. 
He  expressed  his  willingness  to  listen  if  Lewis  would  sue 
for  absolution  according  to  the  forms  of  law,  but  intimated 
that  the  orthodoxy  or  the  heresy  of  Lewis  could  not  be 
dependent  on  the  French  king’s  convenience.y 

About  this  time  a  new  cause  of  difference  arose.  Mar¬ 
garet,  the  heiress  of  the  Tyrol,2  had  been  married  to  a 


*  Walsingh.  i.  223  ;  Ad  Murimuth, 
88  ;  W.  Nangis,  contin.  100,  105  ; 
Matth.  Neoburg.  127  (who  says, 
“generalem  vicarium  per  Germaniam 
et  Teutoniam”)  ;  Baluz.  V  P  Aven.  i. 
201  ;  Olensl.  292-3 ;  Pauli,  Gesch.  v. 
Engl.  iv.  360-1  ;  Bilder,  135-7;  Hook, 
iv.  102.  For  the  pope's  bulls  against 
the  alliance,  see  Rymer,  ii.  1063,  1092, 
1096,  and  Benedict’s  letter  to  Edward, 
against  using  the  title  of  King  of 
France,  ib.  147  (March  1340). 

11  Matth.  Neob.  128. 

*  Ib.  ;  H.  Rebdorff,  429 ;  Olensl. 
296,  307;  Urk.  78;  Palacky,  II.  ii. 
231  ;  Pauli,  iv.  381.  The  recall  of  the 


commission  to  Edward  as  vicar  (July 
25,  I341)  is  in  Rymer,  ii.  1164.  Ed¬ 
ward’s  answer,  Ib.  1167. 

y  Matth.  Neob.  128  ;  Joh.  Vitodur. 
1863  ;  Olensl.  309.  “  Francus,  ut  vide- 

batur,  quod  noluisset  simulavitse  velle; 
Benedictus  vero  quod  voluisset  simu- 
lavit  se  nolle.”  M.  Neob.  1.  c. 

*  Rayn.  1341.  14.  It  is  commonly 
said  that  she  was  called  Maultasch 
(Mouth-pocket),  on  account  of  the 
largeness  of  her  mouth  (Olensl.  314)  - 
“ob  fcedam  tetramque  vultus  disposi- 
tionem”  (Trithemius,  Chron.  Spanh. 
a.d.  1347).  Another  writer  calls  her 
“  femina  inexhaustae  libidinis  et  audax  ” 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1338-41.  MARGARET  MAULTASCH. 


137 


boy  six  years  younger  than  herself,  a  son  of  the  king  ot 
Bohemia.*1  The  marriage  had  not  been  happy,  and  the 
emperor  how  formed  a  scheme  of  securing  Margaret  and 
her  possessions  for  his  son  Lewis,  on  whom  he  had 
already  bestowed  the  marquisate  of  Brandenburg.  It  was 
alleged  that  the  Bohemian  prince  was  incapable  of  per¬ 
forming  the  duties  of  a  husband, b  and  Leopold,  bishop 
of  Freising,  was  found  willing  to  pronounce  a  separa¬ 
tion  on  this  ground,  and  to  grant  a  dispensation  for  the 
marriage  of  Margaret  with  the  younger  Lewis,  to  whom 
she  was  related  within  the  forbidden  degrees.0  But  before 
these  things  could  be  done,  Leopold  was  killed,  while  on 
a  journey,  and  no  other  bishop  could  readily  be  found 
to  carry  out  the  plan.  In  this  difficulty  the  emperor’s 
literary  allies,  Marsilius  and  William  of  Ockham,  came 
to  his  aid,  by  writing  treatises  in  which  it  was  maintained 
that  the  jurisdiction  in  such  cases  was  not  for  the  church, 
but  for  the  temporal  sovereign ;  that  it  had  belonged  to 
heathen  emperors,  and  therefore  much  more  must  it  be 
the  right  of  the  Christian  emperor  ;d  that,  while  it  is  for 
bishops  and  theologians  to  decide  whether  certain  defects 
in  one  of  the  parties  would  justify  a  divorce,  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  rule  so  determined  is  the  business  of  the  secu¬ 
lar  judge;  that  “it  is  for  the  human  lawgiver  to  order 
that  to  be  done  which  is  established  by  the  Divine  law.”  0 
On  the  strength  of  these  opinions  Lewis  proceeded. 

Margaret’s  husband  was  cited,  and,  as  he  did 

,  ,  v  ,  •  a.d.  1341. 

not  appear,  the  emperor  took  it  on  himself 

to  decree  a  divorce,  and  to  dispense  with  the  laws  as  to 


(Mutius,  in  Pistor.  ii.  870).  Matthew 
of  Neuburg  styles  her  “  semifatua.’' 
(Urstis.  ii.  129.)  But  John  of  Winter¬ 
thur  describes  her  as  “pulcra  nimis  ” 
(1864),  and  Bp.  Hefele  says  that  she 
got  her  name  from  the  castle  of  Maul- 
tasch,  where  she  was  born.  vi.  560. 

*  Olensl.  225  ;  Palacky,  II.  ii.  159. 


b  H.  Hervord.  257. 
c  H.  Rebdorff  (429,  442)  and  others 
represent  him  as  having  actually  an 
nulled  the  marriage.  Another  story  is 
given  by  John  of  Winterthur,  1864 
See  Coxe,  i.  126  ;  Palacky,  II.  ii.  240-3. 
d  W.  Ockham,  in  Goldast,  i.  21-4. 
e  Marsil.  ib.  ii.  1389-90. 


CLEMENT  VI.,  POPE. 


Book  VII L 


13s 


consanguinity  with  a  view  to  her  second  marriage/  But 
although  Lewus  thus  gained  his  immediate  object,  this 
invasion  of  a  province  which  had  always  been  supposed 
to  belong  exclusively  to  the  hierarchy  excited  a  general 
distrust,  wrhich  told  severely  against  him.g  He  made 
enemies  of  the  king  of  Bohemia,  with  his  uncle  the 
powerful  archbishop  Baldwin  of  Treves,  and  all  the 
April  25,  Luxemburg  party/  The  pope  desired  the 
*342-  patriarch  of  Aquileia  to  declare  the  late 
proceedings  null,  and  to  interdict  the  Tyrol  /  and  at  this 
very  time  the  death  of  Benedict  XII.  made  way  for  a 
successor  more  formidable  to  the  emperor/ 

The  election  fell  on  Peter  Roger,  a  Limousin  of  noble 
family,  who  styled  himself  Clement  VI.  He 
ay  I342'  had  been  a  Benedictine  monk,  and  at  the 
time  of  his  election  was  archbishop  of  Rouen  and  car¬ 
dinal  of  SS.  Nereus  and  Achilleus.1  He  had  also  been 
chancellor  to  king  Philip,  who,  from  umvillingness  to 
lose  his  services,  had  for  a  time  hindered  his  promotion 
to  the  cardinalate.  His  devotion  to  the  interest  of 


France  was  indicated  in  the  ceremonies  of  his  coronation, 
where  the  chief  parts  wrere  assigned  to  great  French 
dignitaries ;  and  it  was  soon  after  more  fully  shown 
by  the  circumstance  that,  of  ten  cardinals  whom  he 
appointed  at  once,  all  but  one  were  French. m 


f  Olensl.  Urk.  81-2  ;  or  Goldast.  ii. 
1383,  1385.  The  marriage  took  place 
in  Feb.  1342.  Bohmer,  139. 

c  Martin.  Polon.  contin.  in  Eccard.  i. 
1458;  Joh.  Vitodur.,  ib.  1864,  1867. 

h  Matth.  Neoburg,  in  Urstis.  ii.  130; 
Schmidt,  iii.  592  8  ;  Palacky,  II.  ii. 
243;  Gieseler,  II.  iii.  72. 

'  Olensl.  318.  A  divorce  was  after¬ 
wards  pronounced  by  the  bishop  of 
Chur,  under  papal  authority,  on  the 
ground  of  Margaret’s  cohabitation  with 
Lewis  of  Brandenburg.  Matth.  Neo¬ 
burg.  1 51. 

k  It  is  said  that  Benedict,  “de  quo 


fertur  quod  non  fuit  justior  eo  post  S. 
Gregorium,”  on  being  asked,  when 
dying,  to  empower  some  one  to  absolve 
him,  replied,  “  Gloriam  meam  alteri 
non  dabo,  sed  submitto  me  in  miseri- 
cordiam  Dei.”  (Chron.  de  Melsa,  iii. 
38.)  Gualvaneo  Fiamma,  whose  enmity 
to  Benedict  is  remarkable  (see  p.  129, 
note  k,  and  p.  140,  note  "),  says  that 
his  death  caused  very  great  joy  to  all 
Christendom.  1044. 

1  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  205-7  >  Rayn. 
1338.  8r. 

m  Dbllinger,  ii.  267.  Matthew  of 
Neuburg  says  that  he  made  seven 


Chav.  II.  a.d. 


1342. 


CLEMENT  VI. 


l30 


Clement  was  noted  for  his  learning,  for  his  eloquence,11 
and  for  an  extraordinary  power  of  memory;0  his  manners 
were  agreeable,  and  he  is  described  as  free  from  malice 
and  resentment. p  His  morals  were  never  of  any  rigid  cor¬ 
rectness  ;  and  while  he  was  pope,  a  countess  of  Turenne, 
if  not  actually  his  mistress,  is  said  to  have  exercised  an 
absolute  influence  over  him.1!  He  was  a  lover  of  splendour 
and  luxury.  The  great  palace  of  Avignon  was  growing 
under  his  care,r  and  the  princely  houses  of  the  cardinals 
rose  around  it ;  the  court  of  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  was 
perhaps  the  gayest  and  most  festive  in  Europe.  Under 
Clement  the  vice  of  the  papal  city  became  open  and 
scandalous.  Petrarch,  who  himself  cannot  be  described 
as  a  model  of  severe  and  intolerant  virtue,  expressed 
in  the  strongest  terms  his  horror  at  the  abominations 
which  filled  the  new  “Babylon  of  the  West,”8  and  with- 


cardinals  at  the  request  of  the  French 
king,  while  Edward  of  England  could 
not  obtain  the  promotion  of  one  (133). 
Of  twelve  whom  he  created  in  Dec. 
135°,  only  two  were  Italians.  (Cron. 
Estensc,  in  Murat,  xv.  463.)  Among 
his  other  concessions  to  the  French 
sovereigns  were  a  great  number  of 
exemptions  as  to  excommunications 
and  interdicts,  indulgences,  privileges 
for  the  royal  chapels,  etc.  See 
Dachery,  Spicil.  iii.  723. 

n  “  Quanno  esso  teneva  cattedraper 
sermocinare,  o  vero  desputare,  tutto 
Parisi  concorreva  ad  udire  esso.  Deh 
Como  fo  bello  sermocinatore  !  ”  Hist. 
Rom.  Fragm.  in  Murat.  Antiq.  iii. 
343- 

0  W.  Nang.  cont.  90,  343  ;  Trithem. 
de  Scr’pt.  Eccl.  p.  322  ;  De  Sade,  iii. 
50.  The  author  of  the  ‘  Eulogium  His- 
toriarum’  calls  him  “bonae  conditionis, 
bene  litteratus,  amabilis,  affabilis,  man- 
suetus,  morigeratus,  ab  omnibus  ama- 
tus”  (i.  283). 

v  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  264.  Role- 
win  ck  speaks  of  him  as  “  nomine  et  re 


totus  virtuosus,”and  adds,  “  Laudabiiis 
fuit  rigor  severitatis  Benedicti,  sed 
multo  amabilior  fuit  benignitas  de¬ 
mentis  ”  (in  Pistor.  iii.  564). 

1  Matthew  Villani  styles  her  “gover- 
natore  del  papa  nelle  sue  temporali 
bisogne”  (iii.  2)  ;  cf.  iii.  43,  where  Cle¬ 
ment  is  described  as  “molto  cavaller- 
esco,  poco  religioso  ”  (cf.  Henr.  Her- 
vord.  267).  Another  speaks  of  him  as 
“  ab  antecessoris  sui  moribus  in  multis 
distans,  mulierum,  honorum,  et  poten- 
tise  cupidus.”  (Matth.  Neoburg.  133.) 
See  Murat.  Ann.  VII.  ii.  74.  The 
Meaux  chronicler  gives  a  curious  tale 
as  to  his  dissoluteness,  and  tells  us  that 
he  answered  his  confessor’s  remon¬ 
strances  by  saying,  “  Quando  juvenis 
fuimus,  hoc  usi  sumus,  et  quod  facimus 
modo,  facimus  ex  consilio  medicorum.” 
When  the  cardinals  murmured,  he  pro¬ 
duced  a  little  black  book,  from  which  he 
showed  that  the  popes  of  lax  morals 
had  been  the  best  popes,  iii.  39. 

r  Baluz.  i.  261. 

*  Ep.  sine  Titulo,  p.  793  ;  De  Sade, 
ii.  220.  He  styles  Avignon,  “probruza 


140 


CLEMENT  VI. 


Book  VIII 


drew  in  disgust  from  the  papal  city  to  the  solitudes  ot 
Vaucluse.* 

In  his  ecclesiastical  administration,  Clement  reversed 
the  policy  of  Benedict.  Preferments  which  the  late 
pope  had  kept  open,  from  a  conscientious  anxiety  as  to 
the  difficulty  of  finding  suitable  men  to  fill  them,u  were 
now  bestowed  without  any  regard  to  the  qualifications  of 
the  receivers.*  Bishopricks,  cardinalates,  and  other  high 
dignities  were  given  to  young  men  whose  sole  recom¬ 
mendation  was  the  elegance  of  their  person  and  manners, 
while  some  of  them  were  notorious  for  their  dissolute 
habits.y  Other  benefices  were  declared  to  be  vacant  as 
papal  reserves,  and  were  conferred  with  a  like  want  of 
discrimination.  The  higher  offices  of  the  church  were 
reserved  for  the  pope’s  own  disposal,  in  contempt  of  the 
claims  alike  of  sovereigns  and  of  cathedral  or  conventual 
electors.  The  pope’s  own  kindred,  both  clerical  and 
lay,  were  loaded  with  benefices  and  wealth  to  a  degree 
of  which  there  had  been  no  example;2  among  his  cardi¬ 
nals  were  one  of  his  brothers,  two  nephews,  and  another 
relation ;  and  when  some  one  ventured  to  remark  on 


ingens,  foetorque  ultimus  orbis  terrae” 
(Contra  Ga'li  Calumnias,  p.  1179). 
“  QuicquicI,”  he  says,  “  de  Assyria  vel 
^Egyptia  Babylone,  quicquid  de  qua- 
tuor  Labyrinthis,  quicquid  denique  de 
Averni  limine,  deque  tartareis  sylvis 
sulphureisque  paludibus  legisti,  huic 
Tartaro  admotum  fabula  est.”  (Ep. 
sine  Tit.  705.)  Cf.  pp.  621,  796,  797, 
801,  806,  808,  etc.,Epp.  Famil.  xii.  11  ; 
xv.  11,  etc. 

1  This  was,  not,  however,  his  first 
retirement  to  Vaucluse.  See  De  Sade, 
j-  339-40- 

u  Baluz.  V.  P.  Avcn.  210.  This  is 
turned  against  Benedict  by  one  of  his 
biographers,  —  “  Negligens  in  provi- 
dendo  statum  ecclesiarum  supra  modum 
fuit  et  in  excusatione  duritite  suae 
paucos  ad  hoc  dignos  vel  sufficientes 


dicebat.”  (Ib.  240.)  So  Gualvaneo 
Fiamma  says,  “  Ille  [John  XXII.]  fuit 
in  concedendis  gratiis  ultra  modum  be- 
nevolus;  iste  [Benedict]  fuit  crudelissi* 
mus,  retinuitenim  33obeneficia  mitrata, 
et  sic  ecclesiarum  non  pastor  sed  de- 
tructor  fuit.”  Murat,  xii.  1009. 

x  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  283 ;  M. 
Vill.  iii.  43. 

7  M.  Vill.  1.  c. ;  iv.  86 ;  N.  de  Cle- 
mangis  (?)  de  Corrupto  Eccl.  Statu, 
xxvii.  4-5. 

*  M.  Vill.  iii.  43  ;  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven. 
i.  265,  305 ;  Matth.  Neoburg,  in 
Urstis.  ii.  133  ;  Platina,  258.  The 
chronicler  of  Meaux,  however,  seems 
to  overstate  the  matter, — “  Ut  infra 
paucos  annos  major  pars  cardinalium 
de  filiis  ejus  erat  et  nepotibus.”  iii.  40, 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1342-3. 


CLEMENT  VT. 


141 


this,  Clement’s  answer  was,  “  Our  predecessors  did  not 
know  how  to  be  pope.”8. 

The  Romans,  by  two  legations  composed  of  persons 

who  represented  the  various  classes  of  the 

.  a.d.  1342--;. 

community,0  invited  the  pope  to  take  up  his 
abode  in  the  ancient  capital,  and  Petrarch,  who  was  one 
of  the  deputies,  urged  the  prayer  in  a  poetical  epistle, 
setting  forth  the  attractions  of  the  imperial  and  apostolic 
city.0  In  reply,  Clement  alleged  the  necessity  of  remain¬ 
ing  north  of  the  Alps,  that  he  might  act  as  a  peacemaker 
between  England  and  France ;  but  he  promised  to  visit 
Rome  as  soon  as  the  troubles  of  France  should  be 
settled.  In  the  meantime  he  accepted  the  office  of 
senator,  which  was  offered  to  him,  not  as  pope,  but  as 
a  private  person, d  and  he  granted  another  of  their  re¬ 
quests — that  the  jubilee,  which  was  supposed  to  recur 
only  once  in  a  century,  should  be  celebrated  every 
fiftieth  year.e 

Towards  the  emperor  Lewis,  the  pope,  while  yet  arch¬ 
bishop  of  Rouen,  had  shown  his  hostility  by  a  sermon, 
in  which  he  condescended  to  play  on  the  words  Bava¬ 
rian ,  barbarian ,  and  boor;1  and  his  behaviour  towards 
him  was  marked  throughout  by  a  rancour  which  con¬ 
trasted  strongly  with  the  easiness  of  Clement’s  general 


a  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  31 1.  “Hie non 
modicum  dinnnuit  jura,  jurisdictiones, 
libertates,  thesaurum  atque  patrimonia 
B.  Petri et  ecclesise  Romanse.  ”  Ib.  309. 

b  Hist.  Rom.  Fragm.  in  Mu  at.  Ant. 
Ital.  iii.  343  ;  see  Papencordt’s  *  Rienzo,’ 
339-42.  c  Epp.  1.  ii.  p.  1346. 

d  Rienzi,  in  Lord  Broughton’s  *  Italy,’ 
ii.  514. 

6  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  286  ;  Hefele, 
vi.  579.  “  Havendo  ancora,”  says  Mat¬ 
thew  Villani,  “alcuno  rispetto  a  I’anno 
Jubileo  della  Santa  Iscrittura ;  nel 
quale  catuno  ritorna  ne’  suoi  propi 
berii.  E  i  propi  beni  de’  Christiani  sono 


i  meriti  della  passione  di  Christo ;  per  li 
quali  ci  seguita  Indulgenza  e  remissione 
de’  peccati.”  (i.  29,  in  Muratori,  xiv.) 
A  Bolognese  chronicler  says  that,  from 
the  pope’s  concession  as  to  the  jubilee, 
people  supposed  that  he  must  be  in 
want  of  money.  Murat,  xviii.  415 
f  “  Quem  nominavit  Baurum,  inter¬ 
pretans  nomen  baurus,  id  est,  nesciens 
tergere  barbain,  quia  tantam  dixit  esse 
foeditatem  oris  sui  quod  ipsam  abjicere 
non  valebat.”  (Matth.  Neob.  133.) 
Gieseler  says  that  for  baurum  we  ought 
to  read  Bavarian,  with  a  reference  to 
the  French  word  have.  II.  iii.  73. 


142 


CLEMENT  VI. 


Book  VIII. 


character.  The  emperor  sent  a  mission  to  Avignon, 
caused  processions  and  other  religious  services  to  be 
celebrated  with  a  view  to  an  accommodation,8  and  re¬ 
minded  king  Philip  of  his  engagement  to  intercede  for 
him ;  but  although  Philip  made  a  show  of  exerting  him¬ 
self,  the  terms  which  the  pope  prescribed  were  too  rigid. 
It  was  required  that  Lewis  should  penitently  acknow¬ 
ledge  all  the  errors  of  his  past  conduct — that  he  should 
resign  the  empire,  and  restore  the  Tyrol  to  the  Bohemian 
prince  John;h  and  on  Maundy  Thursday 
1343  a  new  bull  was  issued,  in  which,  after 
a  long  recital  of  the  emperor’s  offences — his  contempt  of 
ecclesiastical  censures,  his  opposition  to  pope  John  on 
the  question  of  evangelical  poverty,  his  proceedings  in 
Italy  and  at  Rome,  especially  the  crime  of  setting  up  an 
antipope,  his  usurpation  of  the  right  to  grant  a  dispensa¬ 
tion  for  the  ‘‘incestuous  and  adulterous”  union  of  his 
son  with  Margaret,  “  whom  her  immodesty  will  not  allow 
us  to  call  our  beloved  daughter  ” — the  pope  charges  him 
within  three  months  to  lay  down  the  imperial  title  and 
authority,  to  appear  in  person  for  penance,  and  to  amend 
his  offences  against  the  church ;  and  he  threatens  him 
with  yet  worse  punishments  in  case  of  failure.1  At  the 
same  time  Clement,  by  private  letters,  desired  the 
German  princes  to  prepare  for  another  election,  and 
threatened  that,  if  they  should  be  backward,  he  would 
give  the  empire  a  new  head,  by  the  same  authority 
which  had  formerly  transferred  it  from  the  Greeks  to 
the  Germans.k 

Notwithstanding  the  French  king’s  intercession,  the 
pope,  at  the  expiration  of  the  time  which  he  had  named, 
pronounced  Lewis  to  be  contumacious ;  and  a  meeting 
of  electors  was  held  at  Rhense,  under  the  influence  of 


<?  J.  Vitodur.  1903. 

*>  Olensl.  325  ;  Schmidt,  iii.  593. 


'  Olensl.  Urk.  83. 
k  Olensl.  326 ;  Schmidt,  iii.  594. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1343. 


AND  LEWIS  IV. 


143 


John  of  Bohemia  and  his  uncle,  archbishop  Baldwin, 
who  were  now  strongly  opposed  to  the  emperor.  Lewis, 
although  on  receiving  the  report  of  his  first  mission  to 
Clement  he  had  angrily  sworn  that  he  would  never  yield 
to  the  assumptions  of  the  papal  court,1 II  was  warned  by 
tokens  of  a  growing  disaffection  to  attempt  a  different 
course.  He  appeared  at  Rhense,  and  was  able  to  avert 
the  immediate  danger  by  professing  himself  willing  to  be 
guided  in  all  things  by  the  judgment  of  the  electors,  and 
to  labour  in  all  ways  for  a  reconciliation  with  the  church, 
and  by  producing  a  letter  in  which  the  French  king  held 
out  hopes  of  his  obtaining  absolution.™ 

As  his  former  applications  had  been  considered  in¬ 
sufficient,  Lewis  now  begged  that  the  pope  would  him¬ 
self  furnish  him  with  a  draft  of  the  terms  which  were 
required  of  him ;  and  in  answer  to  this  he  received  a 
document  to  which  it  might  have  seemed  impossible  that 
an  emperor  could  submit  in  any  extremity."  He  was 
required  not  only  to  acknowledge  the  errors  of  his  past 
conduct,  but  to  profess  that  he  had  never  thought  it 
right ;  to  give  up  the  imperial  title,  and  to  own  that  it 
was  in  the  gift  of  the  pope  alone ;  to  undertake  a  crusade 
whenever  the  pope  should  call  on  him ;  to  amend  all 
faults  against  the  church  and  the  pope,  and  to  promise 
absolute  obedience.0  Even  pope  Clement  was  surprised 
when  Lewis  authorized  his  ambassadors  to  accept  these 
terms  ;p  but  still  these  were  not  enough.  Another  docu¬ 
ment  was  prepared,  by  which  Lewis  was  required  to 
amend  and  retract  all  that  he  had  done,  not  only  as 
emperor,  but  as  king — not  only  as  to  Italy  and  Rome, 

I  Olensl.  329.  Rebdorff,  a.d.  1344. 

m  lb.  330  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  168.  0  Olensl.  Urk.  85. 

II  “  Procuratorium  turpissimum  et  P  lb.  p.  332  ;  Matth.  Neob.  I.  c.  The 
rigidissimum,  quod  non  credebant  Lu-  emperor  wrote  letters  to  the  pope  and 
dovicum  sigillaturum  etiam  si  captus  cardinals  (ib.),  which  Rinaldi  mis- 
fuisset.”  Matth.  Neob.  133.  Cf.  H.  dates.  See  Olensl.  ib.,  and  Urk.  86. 


i44 


LEWIS  AND  THE  ELECTORS. 


Book  VIII. 


but  as  to  Germany — and  to  pledge  himself  for  the  future 
to  absolute  slavery  to  the  papal  will.*!  At  this,  which 
concerned  the  electors  as  well  as  himself,  the  emperor 
hesitated.  He  summoned  a  diet  to  meet  at  Franktort 
in  September  1344,  and,  after  having  exposed  the  pope’s 
dealings  with  him,  he  asked  the  advice  of  the  assembly. 
Great  indignation  was  expressed,  and  it  was  resolved,  in 
accordance  with  the  determination  of  the  electors  in 
a  previous  meeting  at  Cologne,  that  compliance  with 
the  pope’s  demands  would  be  incompatible  with  the 
emperor’s  oath  of  office  and  with  the  duty  of  the 
electors.1  But  the  feeling  of  the  assembly,  instead  of 
being  favourable  to  Lewis,  turned  against  him,  as  having 
by  his  weakness  and  vacillation  lowered  the  dignity  of 
the  empire,. and  as  being  now  for  personal  reasons  the 
only  hindrance  to  peace.8  Another  meeting  was  held  a 
few  days  later  at  Rhense,  where  John  of  Bohemia  took 
the  lead  in  opposition  to  him.  When  Lewis 

uCpt«  1 7»  , 

offered  to  resign,  the  electors  showed  them- 
selves  willing  to  accept  the  offer,  and  in  his  place  to  set 
up  Charles,  marquis  of  Moravia,  a  son  of  the  Bohemian 
king  ;  and  the  emperor’s  attempt  to  recommend  his  son, 
Lewis  of  Brandenburg,  as  his  successor,  was  met  by  the 
insulting  declaration  that,  since  one  Bavarian  had  so 
degraded  the  empire,  they  would  have  no  more  Bavarian 
emperors.1 

Clement  was  resolved  against  any  reconciliation.  An- 

Aprii  13,  other  mission  from  the  emperor11  appeared  at 
i346-  the  papal  court,  but  without  effect ;  and  on 
Maundy  Thursday  a  fresh  anathema  was  issued,  in  which 
the  pope,  after  forbidding  all  intercourse  with  Lewis 
except  for  the  benefit  of  his  soul,  denying  him  the  right 

<1  Olensl.  333-4,  and  Urk.  88;  Schmidt,  *  J.  Vitodur.  1.  c. 

ii .  596.  4  lb. ;  Olensl.  341. 

r  J.  Vitodur.  1904;  Matth.  Neob.  0  lb.  343. 

134 ;  Olensl.  339-40. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1343-6.  QUESTION  OF  THE  EMPIRE. 


*45 


of  Christian  burial,  and,  charging  all  Christian  princes  to 
expel  him  from  their  territories,  proceeds  to  implore  the 
most  horrible  curses  on  him  ;x  and  the  document  con¬ 
cludes  by  charging  the  electors  to  make  choice  of  a  new 
king,  with  a  threat  that,  in  case  of  their  neglect,  the  pope 
would  himself  provide  a  person  to  fill  the  vacant  throne/ 
John  of  Bohemia,  who  had  lately  become  blind,  visited 
Avignon  with  his  son  Charles,  who  had  received  in  the 
French  court  an  education  of  almost  a  clerical  character ; 
and  Clement,  who,  as  abbot  of  Fecamp,  had  been  the 
prince’s  tutor,  was  now  favourable  to  his  pretensions.2 
But  when  the  question  of  the  empire  was  brought  before 
the  cardinals,  a  violent  conflict  arose.  The  French 
party,  headed  by  Talleyrand  of  Perigord,  bishop  of 
Albano,  was  with  the  pope ;  the  Gascons,  under  the 
cardinal  of  Comminges,  a  nephew  of  Clement  V.,  were 
on  the  other  side.  Odious  charges  and  imputations  were 
bandied  to  and  fro  ;  the  two  chiefs  had  risen  from  their 


x  E.g.,  “Divinam  suppliciter  im- 
ploramus  potentiam,  ut  Ludovici  prae- 
fati  confutet  insaniam,  deprimat  et 
elidat  superbiam,  et  eum  dexterae 
suae  virtute  prostemat,  ipsumque  in 
manibus  inimicorum  suorum  et  eum 
persequentium  concludat,  et  tradat  cor- 
ruentem  ante  ipsos.  Veniat  ei  laqueus 
quern  ignorat,  et  cadat  in  ipsum.  Sit 
maledictus  ingrediens,  sit  maledictus 
egrediens.  Percutiat  eum  Dominus 
amentia  et  caecitate  et  mentis  furore. 
Coelum  super  eum  fulgura  mittat. 
Omnipotentis  Dei  ira,  et  beatorum 
Petri  et  Pauli,  quorum  ecclesiam  prae- 
sumpsit  et  praesumit  suo  posse  confun- 
dere,  in  hoc  et  futuro  saeculo  exardes- 
cat  in  ipsum.  Orbis  terrarum  pugnet 
contra  eum  ;  aperiatur  terra  et  ipsum 
absorbeat  vivum.  In  generatione  una 
deleatur  nomen  ejus,  et  dispereat  de 
terra  nomen  ejus.  Cuncta  elementa 
sint  ei  contraria.  Habitatio  ejus  fiat 
deserta,  et  omnia  sanctorum  quiescen- 
tium  merita  ilium  confundant,  et  in  hac 


vita  super  eum  apertam  vindictam 
ostendant,  filiique  ejus  ejiciantur  de 
habitationibus  suis,  et  videntibus  ejus 
oculis  in  manibus  hostium  eos  perden- 
tium  concludantur.” 

y  Olensl.  Urk.  89 ;  Matth.  Neob. 
135  ;  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  248. 

z  See  Charles’s  autobiography  in 
Bohmer,  Fontes,  ii.  233.  His  original 
name,  Wenzel,  was  changed  at  his  con¬ 
firmation  (ib.  233),  although  it  would 
seem  that  the  Germans  continued  to 
call  him  by  it  until  his  election  as  king 
of  the  Romans.  (H.  Rebdorff,  1075.) 
John  feeling  the  disadvantages  of  his 
own  want  of  learning,  was  resolved  that 
his  son  should  be  well  educated  (Bohm. 
234),  and  Charles  was  able  to  speak 
and  write  with  ease  Bohemian,  French, 
Italian,  German,  and  Latin  (ib.  247 ; 
Schrockh,  xxx.  92).  The  autobiography, 
addressed  by  Charles  to  his  sons  Wenzel 
(Wenceslaus)  and  Sigismund,  reaches 
to  his  election  as  king  of  the  Romans. 


VOL.  VII. 


IO 


146 


ELECTION  OF  CHARLES  IV. 


Book  VIII. 


seats  to  rush  at  each  other,  when  they  were  with  diffi¬ 
culty  restrained  by  the  pope,  and  the  meeting  was 
suddenly  broken  up ;  whereupon  the  members  of  the 
hostile  factions  fortified  their  houses  and  armed  their 
servants,  as  if  in  expectation  of  a  general  tumult.a  A 
paper  of  terms  was  offered  by  the  pope  to  Charles,  and 
was  accepted  by  him.  By  this  the  future  emperor  bound 
himself  to  a  degrading  submission  to  the  papal  see.b 

The  pope  now  issued  a  mandate  desiring  the  electors 

A  '1  28  t0  Proceec^  t0  a  new  choice.  As  there  was 
no  hope  of  gaining  Henry  of  Virneburg — to 
whom,  as  archbishop  of  Mentz,  belonged  the  privilege 
of  superintending  the  election — Clement  set  him  aside 
in  favour  of  Count  Gerlach  of  Nassau,  a  youth  of 
twenty;0  and  he  desired  that  Lewis  of  Brandenburg, 
son  of  the  deposed  emperor,  should  be  excluded  from  a 
vote,  as  holding  his  position  unlawfully.d  The  young 
archbishop  summoned  a  meeting  to  take  place  at  Rhense 
on  the  10th  of  July,  when  he  appeared  with  the  electors 
of  Cologne  and  Treves,  the  king  of  Bohemia,  and 
Rudolf,  duke  of  Saxony.  The  empire  was  declared  to 
be  vacant ;  Charles  of  Moravia  was  elected  by  the  five, 
and  the  ceremony  of  raising  him  aloft  was  performed  on 
the  “King’s  Chair”  of  Rhense,  as  Frankfort  was  in  the 


*  G.  Vill.  xii.  59.  To  this  refer  the 
words  of  Petrarch, — 

“  Ecce  duo  obnixis  qui  sese  cornibus  urgent.’* 
Eciog.  vii.  p.  1265. 

b  See  Olensl.  Urk.  93,  where  it  is  em¬ 
bodied  in  a  later  document ;  or  Rayn. 
1344.  19,  seqq. 

0  For  a  lively  account  of  the  contest 
for  Mentz,  see  Matth.  Neob.  139. 
Henry  had  been  made  archbishop  with¬ 
out  the  consent  of  the  canons,  and  had 
been  kept  out  of  the  see  for  three  years, 
during  which  it  was  administered  by 
Baldwin  of  Treves  (Trithem.  Chron. 
Hirsaug.  a.d.  1328).  Notwithstanding 
the  pope’s  condemnation,  he  carried 


himself  as  archbishop  so  long  as  Lewis 
lived,  while  Gerlach  was  acknowledged 
only  in  Hesse,  where  the  landgrave 
was  favourable  to  him.  Ib.  a.d.  1353; 
Gobelin.  Persona,  in  Meibohm.  i.  291. 

d  Olensl.  Urk.  90 ;  Baluz.  V.  P. 
Aven.  i.  248;  G.  Vill.  vii.  59;  Rayn. 
1343.  62.  At  this  time,  partly  with  the 
intention  of  annoying  Henry  of  Virae- 
burg,  king  John  and  his  son  Charles 
got  the  Bohemian  church  made  inde¬ 
pendent  01'  the  see  of  Mentz,  Prague 
being  erected  into  an  archbishoprick. 
Matth.  Neob.  135;  Olensl.  337;  Pelzel, 
i2r  ;  Mansi,  xxvi.  75;  Palacky,  II. 
ii.  24S. 


Chap.  II.  a.d.  1346. 


AS  RIVAL  EMPEROR. 


U7 


hands  of  the  opposite  party.e  The  services  of  his  sup¬ 
porters  were,  as  usual,  rewarded  by  large  pay¬ 
ments  or  other  concessions, f  and  the  election 
was,  although  not  until  nine  months  later,  confirmed  by 
the  pope.g 

The  general  feeling  of  the  Germans  was  against  Charles. 
They  saw  with  indignation  that  the  same  humiliations 
to  which  Lewis  had  submitted  only  in  the  extremity  of 
distress  were  accepted  by  the  new  claimant  as  the  very 
conditions  on  which  he  was  to  be  allowed  to  supplant  a 
lawfully-chosen  emperor.11  A  diet  at  Spires,  under  Lewis, 
declared  the  election  of  his  rival  to  be  null,  and  denied 
the  pope’s  right  to  depose  an  emperor.1  No  secular  prince 
would  side  with  Charles;  no  city  would  countenance  or 
harbour  him ;  even  at  Basel,  the  bishop  and  his  monks 
were  unable  to  procure  his  admission. k  Aix-la-Chapelle, 
the  traditional  scene  of  the  German  coronations,  shut  its 
gates  against  him ;  and  he  was  derided  by  the  name  of 
the  “  priests’  emperor.” 1  In  this  state  of  things  he  found 
it  expedient  to  withdraw  with  his  father  into  France ;  and 
at  the  great  battle  of  Cressy,  where  the  blind  August  26, 
king  died  in  the  thick  of  the  fight,  Charles  fled  1346. 
from  the  field.111  As  Aix  and  Frankfort  were  nov_  2r 
closed  against  him,  he  was,  with  the  pope’s  1 346- 
consent,  crowned  at  Bonn  by  the  archbishop  of  Cologne  ;n 


e  Matth.  Neob.  135 ;  Baluz.  V.  P. 
Aven.  i.  248  ;  G.  Vill.  xii.  59. 

Matth.  Neob.  135  ;  Herm.  Corner, 
1076. 

s  Olensl.  Urk  92;  ib.  pp.  361,  365; 
G.  Vill.  xii.  77. 

h  See  Rayn.  1347.  2,  seqq.;  Giesel. 
II.  iii.  80-1.  Palaeky,  who  is  very 
favourable  to  Charles  on  account  of 
his  merits  as  king  of  Bohemia,  says 
that  he  differed  from  others,  not  by 
yielding  more,  but  by  intending  to  keep 
his  engagements.  II.  ii.  267-9. 

*  Olensl.  i.  359,  360. 


k  Matth.  Neob.  139 ;  Olensl.  360. 

1  G.  Vill.  xii.  105.  The  objections 
to  his  election  as  irregular  are  set  forth 
by  Henr.  Hervord.  275. 

m  H.  Rebdorfif,  436 ;  Froissart,  i. 
288;  Hist.  Rom.  Fragm. 'in  Murat. 
Antiq.  Ital.  iii.  379-87;  Andr.  Ratisb. 
in  Pez,  IV.  iii.  570 ;  Petrarc.  de  Remed. 
utriusq.  Fortunse,  ii.  96  ;  Palaeky,  II. 
ii.  263-4.  John  had  only  reached  the 
age  of  fifty  (Pauli,  iv.  401).  As  to  his 
blindness,  see  Palaeky,  225-6,  236. 

“  G.  Vill.  xii.  77  ;  Matth.  Neob.  138  ; 
Palaeky,  II.  ii.  270,  who  gives,  from 


148 


DEATH  OF  LEWIS  IV. 


Book  VIII. 


and  Germany  seemed  to  be  on  the  verge  of  a  civil  war,° 
when  Lewis  suddenly  died  of  a  fall  received  in  hunting, p 
on  the  11th  of  October  1347 — the  last  emperor  against 
whom  the  anathema  of  the  church  was  directed,  and  the 
one  who  felt  it  most  severely,  although  living  at  a  time 
when  such  denunciations  were  generally  less  dreaded 
than  in  the  days  when  men  had  not  become  familiar  with 
them  through  abuse.'1 


CHAPTER  IIL 


JOANNA  OF  NAPLES— RIENZI — LAST  YEARS  OF  CLEMENT  VI. 

A.D.  I343-I352. 

I.  Robert,  w7ho  from  the  year  1309  had  reigned  over  the 
kingdom  of  Apulia,  or  Naples,  with  a  reputation  for 
v’isdom  and  political  skill  unequalled  among  his  contem¬ 
poraries, a  lost  his  only  son,  Charles,  in  1328  ;b  and. 


Pelzel’s  Life  of  Charles,  a  strange  letter 
of  abuse  addressed  to  him  by  Lewis  in 
January  1347. 

0  For  the  anarchy  which  prevailed, 
see  H.  Hervord.  267-8. 

P  G.  Vill.  xii.  105.  The  fall  is  said 
to  have  been  caused  by  paralysis. 
(Matth.  Neob.  1.841.)  H.  Rebdorff 
views  his  sudden  death,  while  under 
the  church’s  censure,  as  a  judgment  on 
his  having  allowed  the  church  and  the 
poor  to  be  oppressed,  etc.  (437).  Ac¬ 
cording  to  some  writers  the  emperor 
was  poisoned  by  the  wife  of  Duke  Albert 
of  Austria  (C.  Zantfliet  in  Mart.  Coll. 
Ampl.  v.  250),  or  by  Margaret  Maul- 
tasch  (Trithem.  Chron.  Ducum  Ba- 
var,  p.  133  ;  Chron.  Spanh.  a.d.  1347). 
Cf.  Andr.  Ratisb.  571 ;  Wadding,  T347. 
18  ;  H.  Hervord.  270  (who  is  full  on  the 
emperor’s  character).  Rinaldi  exults 


in  his  death.  1347.  9. 

Schmidt,  iii.  604.  Later  popes 
and  the  council  of  Basel  style  him 
“  divae  memoriae  imperator,”  although 
Rinaldi  and  even  Muratori  speak  of 
the  empire  as  vacant  from  the  death  of 
Henry  VII.  to  the  election  of  Charles. 
(Olensl.  380  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  80.)  Aven- 
tinus,  a  century  and  a  half  later,  is  very 
eulogistic.  6301. 

a  Petrarch  styles  him  “  regum  et 
philosophorum  hujus  aevi  meo  prin- 
ceps  judicio.”  (Rer.  Mirabil.,1.  I.  t.  i. 
444  ;  cf.  456,  513.)  John  Villani  says 
that  for  500  years  [i.e.,  apparently, 
since  Charlemagne]  there  had  been  no 
such  sovereign,  either  for  abilities  or 
for  acquired  knowledge  (xii.  9) ;  cf. 
Hist.  Rom.  Fragm.  in  Murat.  Antiq. 
iii.  31 1,  seqq. ;  Olensl.  327. 

b  Alb.  Mussat.  in  Murat,  x.  780 ; 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1333-43-  JOANNA  OF  NAPLES. 


I49 


seemingly  from  a  wish  to  compensate  the  elder  branch  of 
his  family  for  its  exclusion  from  the  Neapolitan  throne  at 
an  earlier  time,c  he  resolved  to  bestow  his  granddaughter 
Joanna,  who  had  thus  become  his  heiress,  on  one  of 
its  members.d  For  this  purpose,  Andrew,  the  second 
son  of  Robert’s  nephew,  king  Charobert  of  Hungary, 
was  chosen,  and  the  marriage  took  place  in  1333,  when 
the  bridegroom  was  seven  and  the  bride  five  years  old.e 
Andrew  remained  at  Naples  in  order  that  he  might  be 
duly  trained  up  for  his  future  dignity ;  but  the  roughness 
of  his  character,  which  the  Italians  ascribed  to  his  Hun¬ 
garian  birth,  refused  to  yield  to  the  southern  culture,  and 
he  grew  up  rude,  passionate,  and  headstrong/  On  the 
death  of  Robert,  in  1343,  Joanna,  to  whom  her  grand¬ 
father  had  already  caused  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  be 
taken,  succeeded  to  the  throne  ;  but  intrigues  were  busily 
carried  on  by  members  of  the  royal  family,  and  a  Hunga¬ 
rian  faction,  headed  by  a  friar  named  Robert,  attempted 
to  make  itself  supreme  at  Naples.8  Andrew  endeavoured, 
through  the  interest  of  his  brother  Lewis,  king  of  Hun¬ 
gary,  to  obtain  the  pope’s  consent  that  he  should  be 
crowned,  not  as  consort,  but  as  king  by  hereditary  right  ;h 
and  he  indiscreetly  uttered  threats  of  the  punishments 
which  he  intended  to  inflict  on  all  who  had  offended 
him,  as  soon  as  he  should  be  established  in  the  kingdom,! 


Chron.  Sanese,  ib.  xv.  84.  Letter  of 
John  XXII.  in  Rayn.  1328.  60. 
c  See  p.  69. 

d  G.  Vill.  xi.  224;  Matth.  Neob.  129; 
Gravina  in  Murat,  xii.  549  ;  Vita  Nic. 
Acciajuoli,  ib.  xiii.  1207  ;  Giannone,  iv. 
12. 

«  G.  Vill.  x.  224  ;  xii.  9  ;  Giann.  iv. 
14  ;  Mailath,  Gesch.  d.  Magyaren,  ii. 
49. 

f  Giann.  iv.  18.  Giannone  calls  the 
Neapolitan  court  “accademia  e  domi- 
cilio  d’ogni  virtu  Sismondi,  “lacour 
la  plus  policee,  corame  aussi  la  plus 


corrompue,  de  l’Europe.”  Rep.  Ital. 
iv.  206. 

s  Gravina,  553  ;  Murat.  Ann.  VIII 
ii.  17 ;  Giann.  iv.  19,  73.  See  Petrarch’s 
amusing  description  of  this  friar,  Epp. 
Famil.  v.  3.  He  says  that  at  Naples 
there  was  “nulla  pietas,  nulla  veritas, 
nulla  fides.” 

h  Giann.  iv.  74 ;  Mailath,  ii.  52. 
Clement  grants  the  coronation  as  con¬ 
sort,  Rayn.  1344.  16. 

1  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  246  ;  Gravina, 
559- 


15°  JOANNA  OF  NAPLES.  Book  VIII. 

He  also  suspected  his  wife  of  infidelity, k  and  the  mutual 
ill-feeling  which  arose  from  this  and  other  causes  was 
artfully  fomented  by  interested  courtiers.1  A  conspiracy 
was  formed  against  Andrew,  and,  while  residing  with  the 
queen  and  a  hunting-party  at  the  Celestine  convent  of 
Aversa,  he  was  decoyed  from  his  chamber  and  strangled, 
on  the  night  of  the  18th  of  September  1343.111  By  de¬ 
sire  of  the  Neapolitan  nobles  an  inquiry  was  made  as  to 
the  murder,  and  some  of  the  persons  who  had  been  con¬ 
cerned  in  it  were  put  to  death,  or  otherwise  punished." 
But  Joanna  herself  was  suspected,0  and  when  she  sent  a 
bishop  to  Lewis  of  Hungary,  entreating  his  protection 
for  herself  and  for  the  child  with  whom  she  had  been 
pregnant  at  the  time  of  his  brother’s  death,  he  replied 
in  a  letter  which,  with  unmeasured  severity,  declared  his 
belief  of  her  guilt.p 

On  the  death  of  his  posthumous  nephew,  Lewis 
claimed  the  Apulian  kingdom  as  his  inheritance,  and 


k  G.  Vill.  xii.  50.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  a  story  (probably  of  later  date) 
that  Joanna  was  provoked  against  him 
by  his  having  seduced  her  sister.  Go- 
bel.  Persona  in  Meibohm,  i.  298. 

1  Gravina,  554-5,  558-9. 
m  G.  Vill.  xii.  50 ;  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven. 

i.  246-7 ;  Matth.  Neob.  130 ;  Hist.  Pis¬ 
tol.  512.  It  is  said  that  the  murderers 
had  recourse  to  strangulation,  because 
it  was  believed  that  his  mother  had 
given  him  a  charm  against  steel  and 
poison  (Gravina,  560 ;  Chron.  Estense, 
xv.  422  ;  Hist.  Pistol.  1.  c.;  Mai  lath, 

ii.  53).  “Aversa  vere aversa,”  says  Pe¬ 
trarch,  “  nomen  a  re  sumptum,  aversa 
prorsusab  humanita'e,”  etc.  (Epp.  Fa- 
mil.  vi.  5).  John  of  Bazano,  a  Mode¬ 
nese  chronicler,  thinks  that,  if  Andrew 
had  been  crowned,  the  murderers  would 
not  have  ventured  on  their  crime  ;  and 
he  says  that  a  cardinal,  who  was  on  the 
way  to  crown  him,  performed  the  cere¬ 
mony  on  his  dead  body.  Murat,  xv. 


613. 

n  J.  de  Bazano,  613 ;  Hist.  Pistol. 
5x3-14;  Gravina,  564-7;  G.  Vill.  xii.  51; 
Giann.  iv.  76-7;  Sism.  iv.  211. 

0  Anon.  Ital.  27,  in  Murat,  xvi. 
Giannone  is  favourable  to  Joanna, 
whom  he  highly  eulogizes  (iv.  116). 
Mr.  Hallam  thinks  that  she  was  pro¬ 
bably  innocent  of  the  murder,  and  that 
there  is  no  clear  proof  of  the  dissolute¬ 
ness  which  is  imputed  to  her  by  most 
writers  (M.  A.  i.  347-8) ;  and  she  has 
found  a  champion  of  another  kind  in 
Mr.  Landor.  See  his  *  Andrew  of 
Hungary  and  Joanna  of  Naples.’ 

p  “Johanna,  inordinata  vitapraeterita, 
retentio  potestatis  in  regno,  neglecta 
vindicta  et  excusatio  subsequens,  necis 
tui  viri  probat  te  fuisse  participem,” 
etc.  Chron.  £st.  in  Murat,  xv.  445;  cf. 
ib.  424  ;  Giannone,  iv.  78.  Lewis  and 
his  mother  wrote  to  princes,  denounc¬ 
ing  the  murder.  See  Rymer,  iii.  75-6. 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1343-8.  SALE  OF  AVIGNON.  15  c 

invaded  it,  displaying  at  the  head  of  his  army  a  banner 
on  which  was  painted  the  murder  of  Andrew.  He  also 
sent  an  embassy  to  the  pope,  with  a  request  that  he 
might  be  crowned  as  heir  of  Sicily  and  Apulia ;  but  his 
envoys  were  unable  to  obtain  a  public  audience,  as  it 
was  alleged  that  he  was  connected  with  the  excommuni¬ 
cated  Lewis  of  Bavarian  In  the  meantime,  Joanna, 
yielding  (as  it  was  said)  to  the  entreaties  of  her  subjects, 
who  dreaded  a  Hungarian  rule,  married  her  cousin  Lewis 
of  Taranto,  who  had  been  suspected  of  criminal  intimacy 
with  her  during  the  life  of  her  former  husband,  and  of  a 
share  in  the  guilt  of  his  death ;  and  by  this  she  appeared 
to  confirm  the  imputations  which  had  been  cast  on  her.r 
The  pair  withdrew  from  Naples  before  the  approach  of 
the  Hungarian  force,  and  fled  by  sea  to  the  queen’s 
territory  of  Provence,8  where  she  was  received  at  Avig¬ 
non  with  great  honour,  all  the  cardinals  going  out  to 
meet  her.  Clement,  who  had  already  pronounced  a 
general  excommunication  against  the  murderers  of 
Andrew,*  at  the  request  of  Lewis,  appointed  a  com¬ 
mission  of  three  cardinals  to  investigate  the  case,  but 
without  any  definite  result ;  he  granted  a  dispensation 
for  the  queen’s  second  marriage, u  and  endeavoured  to 
mediate  between  her  and  the  king  of  Hungary. x  After 
a  time  Lewis  withdrew  from  Apulia,  where  he  had  in¬ 
flicted  severe  punishment  on  many  who  were  suspected 
of  a  share  in  his  brother’s  murder.y  Joanna  and  her 
husband  were  requested  by  a  party  among  her  subjects 
to  return;2  and,  in  order  to  provide  money  jan>  12) 
for  this  purpose,  she  agreed  to  sell  Avignon  i348- 
to  the  pope  for  a  price  far  below  its  real  value,  in  con- 

<1  G.  Vill.  xii.  57;  Giann.  iv.  80-1;  u  G.  Vill.  xii.  114;  Baluz.  V.  P. 
Sism.  iv.  211.  Aven.  i.  253;  M.  Vill.  i.  18  ;  Giann. 

1  Sism.  R.  I.  iv.  256.  iv.  82. 

8  G.  Vill.  xii.  98,  114;  Gravina,  x  Baluz.  i.  253;  Rayn.  1348.  3. 

578-9  ;  Wadd.  1348.  6.  *  Gravina,  583-5. 

*  G.  Vill.  xii.  51 ;  Rayn.  1346.  45.  *  lb.  586-7. 


*52 


STATE  OF  ROME. 


Book  VIII. 


sideration  (as  was  believed)  of  the  favours  which  she  had 
received  or  might  still  desire  from  him  in  the  matter  of 
Andrew’s  murder.a  In  1351  the  king  of  Hungary  again 
appeared  in  southern  Italy;  but  Joanna  and  her  husband 
were  able,  by  the  help  of  one  of  the  mercenary  bands 
which  were  then  at  the  service  of  any  power  that  would 
pay  them,b  to  make  so  vigorous  a  resistance  that  a  truce 
was  concluded.  By  this  the  question  was  referred  to 
the  pope  and  cardinals  for  arbitration,  with  the  under¬ 
standing  that,  if  Joanna  were  found  guilty  of  the  crime 
imputed  to  her,  she  should  forfeit  the  kingdom,  and  that 
if  acquitted,  she  should  retain  peaceful  possession,  but 
should  reimburse  the  Hungarian  king  for  the  expenses 
of  the  war.  The  decision  of  Clement  was  in  her  favour, 
and  she  and  her  husband  were  crowned  by  a  papal  legate 
on  Whitsunday  1352.° 

II.  The  long  absence  of  the  popes  from  Rome  had 
been  disastrous  in  its  effects  on  the  city.  Although  still 
an  object  of  pilgrimage,  it  no  longer  enjoyed  the  wealth 
which  had  been  drawn  to  it  by  the  residence  of  the  court, 
and  by  the  resort  of  persons  from  all  quarters  for  official 
business.  Even  the  pilgrims  were  often  plundered  on  the 
way  by  robbers,  or  by  the  bands  of  mercenary  soldiers 
which  beset  the  roads. d  The  churches  were  falling  into 
decay ;  the  great  monuments  of  antiquity  were  turned 
into  fortresses,  or  were  left  to  utter  neglect.  While  the 
popes  were  usually  elected,  each  in  his  private  capacity, 
and  for  his  own  life,  to  the  nominal  dignity  of  senator, e 


a  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  272  ;  M.  Vill. 
i.  18;  Platina,  260;  Fuller,  ‘The  Pro¬ 
fane  State,’  341,  ed.  Nichols.  The  sale 
was  sanctioned  by  the  emperor  Charles 
as  suzerain.  (Plat.  262.)  Joanna  after¬ 
wards,  when  she  supposed  herself  safe, 
protested  against  the  bargain,  but  in 
vain.  (Gregorov.  vi.  329.)  For  Cle¬ 


ment’s  defence  of  his  conduct  as  to 
Joanna,  see  Rayn.  1349.  5. 

b  Gravina,  681.  See  below,  p.  i.76. 
c  M.  Vill.  i.  93 ;  ii.  4i,  65  ;  hi.  8  ; 
Monaldesco  in  Murat,  xii.  539  ;  Giann. 
iv.  85  ;  Sism.  R.  I.  iv.  291-3. 
d  Gregorov.  vi.  13. 
e  lb.  225. 


Chap.  III. 


PETRARCH. 


*53 


the  city  was  a  prey  to  anarchy,  and  to  the  contentions 
of  the  great  families.*  In  these  circumstances  some 
romantic  spirits  felt  themselves  thrown  back  on  the 
memories  of  an  earlier  time,  regarding  less  the  veneration 
which  was  attached  to  Rome  as  the  religious  capital  of 
Christendom  than  the  fame  of  its  ancient  republican  and 
imperial  grandeur.8  Thus  Dante  had  desired  to  see 
Rome  the  seat  of  the  papacy  and  of  the  empire  ;h  and 
now  Petrarch,  the  foremost  man  of  his  age  in  poetry  and 
general  literature,1  endeavoured  from  time  to  time,  by 
letters  both  in  prose  and  in  verse,  which  found  circulation 
wherever  the  Latin  language  was  understood,  to  stir  up 
both  emperors  and  popes  to  make  Rome  again  their 
residence^  Petrarch  was  decorated  with  the  laurel  crown 
in  the  Capitol  on  Easter-day  1341,  having  received  at 
the  same  time  an  offer  of  that  tribute  to  his  genius  from 
the  university  of  Paris  and  from  the  Roman  senate,  and 
having  chosen  to  be  so  honoured  by  the  representatives 
of  ancient  greatness  rather  than  by  the  body  which,  in 
his  own  time,  was  most  distinguished  in  the  cultivation 
of  literature.1 


f  Hist.  Rom.  Fragmenta,  in  Murat. 
Antiq.  iii.  411 ;  Sismondi,  iv.  218  ;  Gre- 
gorov.  vi.  185,  200-2. 

8  Milm.  v.  341. 
h  See  above,  pp.  76-8. 

J  See  Zantfliet,  in  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl. 
v.  226,  229.  Tiraboschi  remarks  that 
Petra:  ch,  even  if  he  had  not  written 
the  poems  to  which  he  owes  his  popu¬ 
lar  fame,  would  have  deserved  to  be 
regarded  as  one  of  the  most  illustrious 
men  of  his  country,  (v.  443.)  The 
Basel  edition  of  his  works  (fol.  1554) 
contains  only  eight  books  of  his  letters 
‘  De  Rebus  Familiaribus,'  but  has  the 
‘  Seniles  ’  and  the  ‘  Sine  Titulo.’  The 
late  Florence  edition  of  the  Letters,  by 
Fracassetti  (3  vols.  8vo.  1853-63),  is 
without  the  ‘Seniles’  and  the  ‘Sine 
Titulo,’  but  has  sixteen  additional 


books  of  ‘Familiar’  letters,  and  large 
additions  to  the  ‘  Variae.’ 

k  Epp.  1.  i.  pp.  1331,  1335,  1346,  ed. 
Basil.;  Epp.  Famil.  xi.  1 ;  xii.  1;  xviii. 
1  ;  xix.  1,  etc.  He  writes  to  certain 
cardinals,  who  had  been  commissioned 
to  reform  Rome,  “  Primum  animis  ves- 
tris  reor  insitum,  nullius  humanae  rei 
nomen  esse  sanctius  quam  reipublicae 
Romanorum.”  xi.  16. 

1  Opera,  1251,  seqq.;  Tirab.  v.  437  ; 
Gibbon,  vi.  368 ,  Gregorov.  vi.  208- 
15.  The  two  invitations  reached  him 
at  the  third  and  the  tenth  hours  on  one 
and  the  same  day.  (Opera,  1251.) 
Papencordt  says  that  De  Sade’s  account 
of  the  coronation  (t.  ii.  note  14)  is 
apocryphal.  (Cola  di  Rienzo,  58.)  For 
the  history  of  the  laurel  crown,  see 
Selden,  iii.  457,  ed.  Wilkins  ;  Gibbon, 


*54 


RIENZI. 


Book  VI IT. 


Among  the  spectators  of  this  ceremony  it  is  probable 
that  there  was  one  in  whom  the  romantic  feeling  which 
has  been  described  was  soon  to  find  a  remarkable  expres¬ 
sion  ;  indeed,  it  has  been  supposed  that  his  enthusiasm 
had  drawn  nourishment  from  the  sight  of  the  great  poet 
wandering  among  the  monuments  of  Rome’s  former 
majesty  on  an  earlier  visit  to  the  city.m  Nicolas,  who, 
from  a  popular  corruption  of  his  father’s  name,  is  com¬ 
monly  called  Rienzi,n  was  bom  about  the  year  1314,0  in 
the  region  named  Regola,  which  extends  along  the  left 
bank  of  the  Tiber,  adjoining  the  Jewish  quarter  of  Rome. 
His  father  was  a  tavern-keeper,  his  mother  a  washer¬ 
woman  and  water-carrier;15  and  although,  in  the  later  part 
of  his  life,  he  professed  to  be  an  illegitimate  offspring  of 
the  emperor  Henry  VII. ^  it  is  certain  that  this  attempt 
to  glorify  his  paternal  descent  at  the  expense  of  his 
mother’s  reputation  was  merely  the  invention  of  a  dis¬ 
eased  vanity.1. 2 


1.  c. ;  Tirab.  v.  455-6 ;  Burkhardt, 
161. 

m  Gregorov.  vi.  206,  213. 

n  I.e.  The  son  of  Laurence.  It  has 
been  said  that  his  family  name  was  Ga- 
brini ;  but  of  this  there  is  no  trace  in 
the  original  sources.  (Papencordt,  62.) 
The  chief  special  authority  for  the 
history  of  this  man,  whose  character 
has  been  extravagantly  idealized  by 
writers  of  fiction,  is  a  chronicle  pub¬ 
lished  in  the  third  volume  of  Muratori’s 
Antiquities,  under  the  title  of  ‘  His¬ 
toric  Romanae  Fragmenta.'  This  has 
since  been  re-edited  by  Zephyrino  Re, 
Florence,  1828  and  1854.  [My  refer¬ 
ences  are  usually  to  Muratori ;  those  in 
which  Re  is  mentioned  are  to  his  second 
edition. ]  The  author  has  been  wrongly 
identified  with  one  Fortifiocca,  whom 
he  occasionally  mentions.  (See  Re, 

2. )  See  too  Hocsemius,  in  Chapea- 
ville,  ‘  Gesta  Pontiff.  Leodiensium,’ 
ii.  494,  seqq.  (Leod.  1613) ;  Lord 
Broughton’s  *  Italy,’  ii.  512,  seqq.;  and 


Papencordt’s  ‘  Cola  di  Rienzo,’  Hamb. 
1841,  in  all  of  which  there  are  original 
materials.  0  Rd,  176. 

p  Hist.  Rom.  Fragm.  399. 
q  The  story  is  that  Henry,  having 
visited  St.  Peter’s  in  disguise,  while 
the  Vatican  suburb  was  in  the  hands  of 
his  enemies,  was  pursued  into  Lorenzo’s 
tavern,  where  he  lay  hidden  for  ten 
days  or  more,  and  so  became  the  father 
of  Nicolas  by  the  hostess.  The  first 
apearance  of  it  is  after  the  fall  of 
Rienzi,  when  he  wished  to  recommend 
himself  to  Charles  IV.  at  Prague.  His 
own  statement  is  in  Papencordt,  Urk. 
p.  xxxi.  David,  he  says,  had  “filium 
non  ignotum”  by  Uriah’s  wife,  and 
Abraham  had  “  filium  Deo  acceptum  ex 
ancilla.”  The  author  of  the  Hist.  Rom. 
Fragm.  represents  him  as  saying  to  the 
emperor,  “De  vostro  lenajo  so;  figlio 
de  vastardo  de  Herrico  imperatore  ” 
(51 1)  ;  but  we  ought  to  read  (with  Re, 
250)  “figlio  vastardo.” 

1  Papenc.  65  ;  Re,  252. 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1314-45. 


RIENZI. 


T5S 


Rienzi  was  educated  for  the  profession  of  a  notary; 
but  his  delight  was  in  the  study  of  the  old  Roman  authors, 
— of  Livy,  Caesar,  Cicero,  Boethius,  and  the  poets, — and 
he  acquired  an  unusual  skill  in  reading  and  interpreting 
ancient  inscriptions.8  From  brooding  over  these  records 
of  the  past  he  conceived  visions,  which  he  attempted  to 
realize  with  an  amount  of  success  which  for  a  time  was 
wonderfully  great,  and  might  have  been  far  greater  and 
more  lasting  but  for  his  own  utter  inadequacy  to  the  part 
which  he  attempted  to  act ;  and  the  anarchy  into  which 
Rome  had  fallen  was  especially  brought  home  to  him  by 
the  circumstance  that  his  brother  was  killed  A<IX 

in  an  affray,  and  that  no  redress  was  to  be  1344-5* 

obtained  from  the  great  families  which  then  exercised  the 
powers  of  government.1 

In  1342-3  Rienzi  was  one  of  the  deputation  sent  by 
the  Romans  to  beg  that  pope  Clement  would  return  to 
their  city ; u  and  it  is  said  that  his  eloquence  won  the 
admiration  of  the  pope  himself, x  while  it  is  certain  that 
he  excited  the  enthusiasm  of  Petrarch,  who  afterwards 
found  reason  to  regret  that  he  had  too  easily  allowed 
himself  to  be  fascinated.7  The  embassy,  as  we  have 
seen,2  was  put  off  with  fair  words,  and  with  a  grant  ot 
the  petition  that  the  jubilee  should  be  celebrated  every 


8  Fragm.  399  ;  Milm.  v.  343. 

*  Fragm.  399. 

u  G.  Vill.  xii.  89;  Fragm.  399.  Von 
Reumont  seems  to  think  that  Rienzi 
had  no  regular  commission,  ii.  853. 

x  Fragm.  399. 

y  Gregorov.  vi.  262 :  De  Sade,  ii.  48, 
seqq.  Papencordt  says  that  the  Italians 
universally  suppose  Rienzi  to  be  the 
subject  of  Petrarch’s  sonnet,  “  Spirito 
gentil,”  but  that  the  doubts  raised  by 
De  Sade  (t.  i..  Notes,  61,  seqq.)  are 
still  entertained  by  many  German 
writers.  Dean  Milman  (v.  243),  Gre- 
gorovius  (vi.  202),  and  Re  (Appendix) 


think  the  reference  certain,  but  Von 
Reumont  is  undecided  (ii.  120).  After 
Rienzi’s  fall,  Petrarch  wrote,  “  Vir 
unus  obscurissimse  originis  et  nullarum 
opum,  atque  ut  ratio  docuit  plus  animi 
habens  quam  constantise,  reipublicm 
imbecilles  humeros  subjicere  ausus  est, 
et  tutelam  labentis  imperii  profiteri  ;  ” 
and  from  the  measure  of  success  which 
such  a  person  had  obtained  he  argues 
the  capacity  of  Rome  for  a  revival  ot 
her  greatness.  Apol.  c.  Galli  Calum- 
nias,  p.  1181.  Cf.  Ep.  Famil.  xiii.  6, 
pp.  234-5,  237. 

2  P.  141. 


156 


RIENZI, 


B  ;ok  vm. 


fiftieth  year,  instead  of  once  in  a  century ;  but  this  con¬ 
cession  was  hailed  by  Rienzi  with  a  joy  so  extravagant 
that  he  extolled  Clement  above  the  greatest  of  the  ancient 
Roman  worthies.1 

Rienzi  returned  to  Rome  with  the  official  character  of 
papal  notary, b  and  resumed  his  old  studies, 
1  vt4-  w^]e  inciignation  at  the  oppression  of  the 
nobles  (who  mocked  at  his  ideas  as  the  fancies  of  a  crazy 
enthusiast)0  became  more  vehement  than  ever.  He 
endeavoured  to  excite  the  patriotic  feeling  of  the  people 
by  various  means,  such  as  expounding  inscriptions  which 
attested  the  glory  and  liberty  of  former  days,d  and  by 
exhibiting  a  picture  which,  in  the  midst  of  many  other 
symbols,  displayed  Rome  under  the  figure  of  a  majestic 
matron,  clothed  in  tattered  garments,  with  dishevelled 
hair,  weeping  eyes,  and  hands  crossed  on  her  breast, 
kneeling  on  the  deck  of  a  ship,  which  was  without  mast 
or  sail,  and  appeared  about  to  sink.e  On  the  first  day  of 
Lent  1347,  he  announced  by  a  placard  on  the  church  of 
St.  George  in  the  Velabro  that  the  Romans 
e  *  would  “soon  return  to  their  ancient  good 
estate ;  ” f  and  after  having  held  many  meetings  on  the 
Aventine,  in  order  to  prepare  the  minds  of  the  citizens,8 

,,  he  gave  out  at  Whitsuntide  that  this  good 

May  20.  &  _ .  .  _  b.  , 

estate  was  come.  Rienzi,  at  the  Capitol, 

assumed  the  title  of  tribune,  with  the  pope’s  legate, 

Raymond,  bishop  of  Orvieto,  for  his  colleague ;  h  the  laws 

of  his  government  were  proclaimed,  and  forthwith  he 

entered  on  the  administration  of  the  republic.1  A  strict 

*  Letter  in  Broughton’s  ‘Italy,’  ii.  security  against  the  enmity  of  the 
514,  516.  He  speaks  of  the  jubilee  as  nobles)  is  printed  for  the  first  time  by 
having  been  obtained  by  his  own  in-  Gregorovius,  vi.  230. 
fiuence.  Papenc.  Urk.  21.  c  Fragm.  407-9. 

0  “  Notariode  la  cammora  di  Roma.’  d  lb.  405,-seqq.;  Gregorov.  vi.  236. 

(Fragm.  401.)  His  petition  to  the  pope  e  Fragm.  401  ;  Papencordt,  Urk.  lvi. 
for  this  office  (which  he  represents  him-  {  Fragm.  409.  *  lb.  h  lb.  415. 

self  as  seeking  chiefly  for  the  sake  of  1  lb.  4x3;  Sism.  iv.  221-3;  Gregorov. 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1344-7.  TRIBUNE  OF  ROME. 


157 


and  rigid  system  of  police  was  enforced  without  respect 
of  persons ;  k  the  fortresses  of  the  nobles,  both  in  the  city 
and  in  the  Campagna,  were  demolished ;  the  owners 
were  compelled  to  swear  to  the  observation  of  peace,  and 
long  and  bitter  feuds  were  extinguished  by  a  forced 
reconciliation  of  enemies.1  The  streets  of  Rome  and 
the  highways  of  its  neighbourhood  became,  for  the  first 
time  since  many  years,  safe ; m  the  Romans,  in  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  the  unwonted  security,  fancied  themselves  once 
more  free.n  The  tribune’s  authority  was  respected  far 
beyond  the  bounds  of  his  jurisdiction  ;  his  announcement 
of  his  elevation,  and  his  invitation  to  the  Italian  cities  to 
combine  for  their  common  country,  were  received  with  a 
respectful  welcome:0  it  is  said  that  even  the  soldan  of 
Babylon  was  affected  by  the  change  which  had  taken 
place  in  the  government  of  Rome.P  Petrarch,  watching 
with  enthusiastic  delight  the  course  of  affairs  in  the  city, 
congratulated  the  tribune  and  his  people  on  having  thrown 
off  the  domination  of  foreigners,  and  exhorted  them  to 
profit  by  their  opportunities.^ 

But  very  early  Rienzi  began  to  show  that  his  mind — 
vain,  fantastic,  and  unsteady  from  the  first — had  become 
intoxicated  by  success.  With  the  title  of  tribune  he 
combined  others  at  once  pompous  and  inconsistent, 


vi.  244-6.  The  chronicler  of  Pistoia  re¬ 
presents  his  elevation  as  the  result  of  a 
popular  impulse,  occasioned  by  a  scar¬ 
city,  which  then  prevailed  (Murat,  xi. 
519),  while  another  chronicler  says  that 
the  Romans  chose  him  in  consequence 
of  having  been  warned  that  foreigners 
would  not  attend  the  jubilee  for  fear  of 
being  robbed.  Chron.  Est.,  ib.  xv.  437. 

k  Fragm.  415-19,  421-3. 

1  Ib.  417,  427,  431-9 ;  Papenc.  Urk. 
xlvii. 

m  G.  Vill.  xii.  89. 

n  Sism.  iv.  223. 

0  Fragm.  441-3 ;  Hist.  Pistol,  in  Mur. 
xi.  521  ;  Chron.  Mutin.  ib.  xv.  607-10; 


Chron.  Sanese.  ib.  xiv.128;  Chron.  Est. 
ib.  441  ;  Chron.  Reg.  ib.  xviii.  65  ; 
Gregorov.  vi.  249-58.  See  his  account 
of  his  successes  in  Papenc.  Urk.  pp. 
xxiv.-v. 

P  Fragm.  423. 

Opera,  595,  ed.  Basil.;  iii.  423,  ed. 
Fracassetti ;  cf.  iii.  409,  where  he  de 
scribes  to  Rienzi  the  contrast  between 
Avignon  and  Vaucluse.  See  Gregorov. 
vi.  260.  John  Villani  reports  calmer 
observers  as  already  saying  “che  la 
detta  impresa  del  tribuno  era  un  opera 
fantastica,  e  da  poco  durare.”  Com¬ 
pare  the  story  of  the  Franciscan  weep¬ 
ing  at  his  coronation,  Papenc.  Urk.  Iii. 


RIENZI  AS  TRIBUNE. 


Book  VIII. 


15s 


including  some  which  belonged  to  the  imperial  dignity/ 
He  claimed  a  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost, — a 
pretension  which,  when  taken  in  connexion  with  the 
oracles  of  abbot  Joachim  and  his  school,  was  likely 
to  awaken  suspicions  of  heresy ; s  nay,  he  did  not  hesitate 
even  to  compare  himself  to  the  Saviour/  He  levied 
new  and  heavy  taxes, u  the  proceeds  of  which,  and  of  the 
confiscations  to  which  he  subjected  the  wealthier  citizens,* 
were  spent  in  luxurious  living,  and  on  theatrical  displays, 
in  which  he  himself  was  the  chief  figure/  Among  these 
exhibitions  the  most  noted  wrere  his  admission  to  the 
order  of  knighthood  after  having  bathed  in 
rose-water  in  the  porphyry  vessel  which  was 
traditionally  believed  to  have  been  the  font  of  Con¬ 
stantine’s  baptism,2  and  his  coronation  with  seven 
crowns,  each  of  which  was  intended  to  bear 
Aus>-  I5*  a  particular  symbolical  meaning/  He 
promoted  his  own  relations  to  all  sorts  of  offices,  in 
which  they  disgraced  themselves  and  him  by  their 
unfitness,  and  by  their  extravagance  of  vulgar  luxury ; b 
and  his  own  indulgences  in  food  and  drink  were  such 
that  his  figure  became  gross  and  bloated.0  He  kept  a 


Aug.  1. 


r  Thus  he  styles  himself,  “  Nos  can- 
ilidatus  Spiritus  sancti  miles,  N  icolaus 
severus  et  clemens,  liberator  urbis, 
relator  Italise,  amator  orbis,  Tribunus 
augustus”  (Chron.  Mutin.  609);  and  he 
concludes  a  letter,  ‘  ‘  Datum  in  Capitolio 
urbis,  ubi  regnante  justitia  recto  corde 
valemus,  Nicolaus  severus  et  clemens, 
libertatis,  pacis,  justitiaeque  tribunus, 
ct  sacrae  Romanae  reipubl»cae  liberator 
illustris.”  Hocsem.  505;  cf.  ib.  494; 
Hist.  Pistol.  520. 

*  See  the  emperor  Charles’  letter  in 
Papenc.  Urk.  xxxix.  Rienzi  boasted 
that  through  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  even  a  moral  reformation  had 
been  wrought.  Broughton,  ii.  530-2. 

Papenc.  112,  146. 

0  Yet  he  tells  the  pope  that  he  had 


done  away  with  the  usual  gabelle,  and 
had  not  imposed  any  new  ones.  Hoc¬ 
sem.  504. 

x  Fragm.  479. 

y  lb.  425,  427,  453 ;  Chron.  Est.  439. 
*  Fragm.  448  ;  G.  Vill.  xii.  89  ;  Gre- 
gorov.  vi.  269.  He  himself  mentions 
this  in  a  letter  to  the  pope  (Papenc. 
Urk.  6,  p.  x.),  and  vindicates  it  in 
another — “Numquid  quod  mundando 
licuit  a  lepra  pagano,  Christiano  mun- 
danti  urbem  et  populum  a  leproso 
servitutis  tyrannice  non  licebit?  ”  (Ib. 
xxii. ;  cf.  xxv.)  Perhaps  we  might  read 
“leprosy  .  .  .  tyrannise.” 

a  Papenc.  Urk.  10 ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
281. 

b  Fragm.  434;  Gibbon,  vi.  382-3. 
c  Fragm.  475. 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1347. 


HIS  MISCONDUCT. 


I59 


train  of  poets  to  celebrate  his  actions,  and  of  jesters  to 
amuse  him.d  Fancying  himself  seated  on  the  throne  of 
the  Caesars,  he  summoned  the  pope  to  return  to  Rome,e 
and  the  rival  claimants  of  the  empire,  together  with  the 
electors,  to  submit  themselves  to  his  arbitration  ; f  and 
although  this  was  unheeded,  Lewis  of  Bavaria  stooped  to 
entreat  his  mediation,  with  a  view  to  reconciliation  with 
the  church, g  while  Lewis  of  Hungary  and  Joanna  of 
Naples  each  endeavoured  to  enlist  him  as  a  partisan  in 
their  contest.11 

But  Rienzi’s  errors  became  more  and  more  palpable, 
and  speedily  brought  on  his  ruin.  He  treacherously 
arrested  the  chiefs  of  the  adverse  nobles,  as 
if  on  suspicion  of  a  conspiracy;  and,  after  ep  *  Iy‘ 
having  alarmed  them  with  the  expectation  of  death,  he 
not  only  set  them  free  at  the  intercession  of  some  citizens,1 
but  loaded  them  with  offices  and  honours.  The  Colon- 
nask  and  others,  having  collected  a  force  in  their  fast¬ 
nesses  among  the  mountains,  attacked  him  under  the 
walls  of  Rome  :  and,  when  their  blunders  had  given  him  a 

victory  which  his  own  ability  could  not  have  „ 

J  .  .  Nov,  20. 

gained  for  him,  he  abused  it  by  cruel  insults 

to  the  dead,  and  was  unable  to  profit  by  his  success.1 
Although  he  had  throughout  professed  the  deepest  rever¬ 
ence  not  only  for  religion,  but  for  the  papacy,111  the  pope 


d  Fragm.  421. 

e  Matth.  Neoburg,  in  Urstis.  ii.  142. 
f  Fragm.  451;  Chron.  Est.  440; 
Chron.  Regiense,  65 ;  Hocsem.  494, 
seqq.;  Gibbon,  vi.  381-2. 
e  Fragm.  443. 

h  Papenc.  Urk.  xxiii. ;  Hocsem.  503 ; 
Gibbon,  vi.  378 ;  Sismondi,  iv.  229. 
See  Re,  206. 

1  G.  Vill.  xii.  104;  Fragm.  453,  457; 
Hocsem.  497  ;  Cron.  Bologn.  in  Murat, 
xvii.  406  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  285.  Petrarch 
blames  him  for  having  thrown  away  the 
opportunity  ot  making  them  “urbi 


Romanae  vel  de  hostibus  cives,  vel  de 
timendis  hostibus  contemnendos,”  by 
depriving  them  of  their  fortresses  and 
of  other  means  of  doing  mischief.  Ep. 
Famil.  xiii.  6  (t.  ii.  236). 

k  Rienzi  professed  to  have  visions  of 
Boniface  VIII.  animating  him  against 
the  Colonnas.  Hocsem.  508 ;  Hist. 
Pistol,  in  Murat,  xi.  521. 

1  G.  Vill.  xii.  104  ;  Fragm.  467-9, 
471-3.  See  his  boasts  in  Hocsem. 
907-8. 

m  See  his  letter,  ib.  49S  ;  Broughton, 
ii.  542  ;  Papenc.  160. 


i6o 


FALL  OF  RIENZI. 


Book  VIII. 


had  not  unnaturally  viewed  his  proceedings  with  jealousy. 
He  was  charged  with  heterodoxy,  and  even  with  magic;11 
and  the  legate,  who  had  once  been  his  colleague  in 
power,  but  had  separated  from  him  on  finding  that 
Rienzi  intended  to  use  him  merely  as  a  tool,0  pronounced 
an  anathema  against  him.P  Pipin,  count  palatine  of 
Minerbino  and  Altamura,  a  Neapolitan  noble,  who  had 
been  banished  from  his  own  country,  and  had  become 
the  head  of  a  band  of  mercenaries,  having  been  sum¬ 
moned  to  appear  before  the  tribune  on  account  of  his 
violent  acts,q  proceeded  to  attack  him ;  and  Rienzi,  who 
had  forfeited  the  affection  of  the  people  by  his  miscon¬ 
duct  and  tyranny/  did  not  venture  to  stand  his  ground, 
but  fled  in  abject  terror .s  After  having  been  sheltered 
for  a  time  by  the  Orsini  in  the  castle  of  St.  Angelo,  he 
Dec  1347—  privately  made  his  escape  from  Rome,  and 
Jan.  1348.  found  a  refuge  among  the  fanatical  fraticelli 
of  the  Apennines,  while  the  churches  resounded  with  the 
papal  denunciations  of  him/  and  Rome  relapsed  into  a 
state  of  anarchy  worse  than  before.11 

Two  years  and  a  half  after  his  flight  from  Rome, 
Rienzi  appeared  at  Prague,  in  consequence  of  a  com- 
July  or  mission  given  to  him  by  a  hermit  named 
Aug.  1350.  Angelo,  who  believed  that  he  and  Charles 
IV.  were  destined  to  reform  the  world. x  He  obtained 


n  See  them  in  Rayn.  1347.  17-20  ; 
Milm.  v.  355  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  293.  After 
his  death  a  mirror  of  polished  steel  was 
found  in  his  bedroom,  and  it  was  sup¬ 
posed  that  in  it  he  kept  a  familiar 
spirit.  Fragm.  545. 

0  Papenc.  Urk.  8.  The  pope  had 
confirmed  Rienzi  and  the  legate  as 
“  rectores  ”  of  the  city,  ignoring  the 
title  of  tribune.  Ib.  3-4.  (June  26-7, 
1 347-) 

p  Fragm.  475 ;  G.  Vill.  xii.  104 ; 
Gregorov.  vi.  293. 

G.  Vill.  xii.  104  ;  M.  Vill.  vii.  102  ; 
Chron.  Est.  445-7.  He  was  afterwards 


hanged  in  his  own  town  of  Altamura. 
(Fragm.  479.)  There  is  much  about 
this  man  in  Gravina,  ap.  Murat,  viii. 
551-6,  642,  seqq.,  659,  667,  etc. 
r  Fragm.  475. 

*  Ib.  477. 

*  Papenc.  199. 

0  G.  Vill.  xii.  104 ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
312-14,  325,  335.  It  has  been  supposed 
that  Rienzi  was  present  at  the  jubilee 
in  disguise  (Papenc.  214  ;  Re,  251) ; 
but  there  is  no  warrant  for  this.  Gre¬ 
gorov.  vi.  537. 

x  Ealuz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  256  ;  Fragm. 
511;  Palacky,  II.  ii.  310. 


Chap.  III.  a. d.  1347-8.  THE  “BLACK  DEATH.”  l6l 

access  to  the  emperor,  and  endeavoured  to  draw  him 

into  the  hermit’s  schemes  ;y  but  the  wildness  of  his  talk, 

which  savoured  of  the  society  in  which  he  had  lately 

been  living,  excited  such  suspicions  that  Charles  thought 

it  well  to  commit  him  to  the  care  of  the  archbishop  of 

Prague,  by  whom,  in  compliance  with  a  request  from  the 

pope,  he  was  after  a  time  sent  to  Avignon.2 
1  1  ’  o  Tuiy  13C2. 

The  charge  of  heresy,  however,  was  not 
prosecuted  against  him.  Plis  life  was  spared,  partly 
through  the  intercession  of  Petrarch,  who,  although 
grievously  disappointed  in  his  career,  still  regarded  him 
with  interest  and  sympathy, a  and  partly  in  consequence 
of  a  mistaken  belief  that  he  was  entitled  to  the  honours 
of  a  poet;b  and  he  was  kept  in  confinement,  which, 
according  to  the  notions  of  the  time,  was  lenient,  as  he 
was  bound  only  by  a  single  chain,  and  was  allowed  the 
use  of  books,  especially  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  Livy.c 
In  this  condition  he  remained  until  circumstances 
brought  him  once  more  into  public  life. 


III.  About  the  same  time  when  Rienzi  was  in  power 
at  Rome,  a  pestilence  of  oriental  origin  d  made  0 

its  appearance  in  Europe,  and  mged  with  A'D'  I347'8- 
unexampled  virulence  from  Sicily  to  Iceland  and  even  to 
Greenland.6  This  “  Black  Death  ”  (as  it  was  called)  is 


y  Papenc.  217,  and  Urk.  ii.  It  was 
at  this  time  that  he  invented  the  story 
of  his  connexion  with  the  imperial 
family  (see  p.  154).  Gregorov.  vi.  339. 

z  Rayn.  135c.  5  ;  Papenc.  Urk.  17 ; 
Palacky,  II.  ii.  310-11 ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
340,  344.  The  author  of  the  Hist. 
Rom.  Fragm.  says  that  he  begged  the 
emperor  to  send  him  to  the  pope  (511). 
The  Este  chronicler  tells  us  that  he 
was  drawn  into  writing  down  his 
opinions,  and  that  the  paper  was  sent 
to  Avignon.  460. 

a  See  his  letters,  Rer.  Fam.  vii.  7  , 
xi.  16  ;  xiii.  6 ;  Sine  Tit.  pp.  789-93 ; 

VOL.  VII. 


Papencordt,  Urk.  28. 

b  Petr.  Epp.  ed.  Franc,  ii.  238-9. 

0  Fragm.  511-13. 

d  For  its  ravages  at  Constantinople, 
see  J.  Cantacuzene,  iv.  8.  It  was 
brought  into  the  west  by  Genoese  ves¬ 
sels.  1st.  di  Parma  in  Murat,  xii.  746. 
See  M.  Vill.  i.  2  ;  And.  Dei  in  Murat, 
xv.  120  ;  Chron.  Est.  448-9;  W.  Nang, 
cont.  no. 

e  See  ‘  The  Epidemics  of  the  Middle 
Ages,’  translated  from  Hecker  by  Dr, 
B.  G.  Babington,  ed.  3,  Lond.  1859. 
The  visitation  had  been  preceded  by 
a  scarcity  (Hist.  Pistol,  in  Murat,  xi. 

II 


162  THE  “black  DEATH.”  Book  VIII. 


said  to  have  carried  off  at  least  a  fourth  of  the  popula¬ 
tion1  in  the  countries  which  it  visited.  Among  the 
places  which  most  severely  felt  its  ravages  was  Florence, 
where  the  historian  John  Villani  was  among  its  victims,8 
and  where  its  tragic  details  furnished  an  incongruous 
framework  for  the  lively  and  licentious  tales  of  the 
“Decameron.”11  At  Marseilles  it  carried  off  the  bishop 
and  all  his  chapter,  almost  all  the  Dominican  and  Mino¬ 
rite  friars,  and  one-half  of  the  citizens.1  At  Avignon 
three-fourths  of  the  inhabitants  are  said  to  have  died,k 
among  whom  was  cardinal  Colonna,  the  chief  patron  of 
Petrarch,  with  several  other  princes  of  the  church,  and 
the  lady  whom  the  poet  has  made  for  ever  famous  under 
the  name  of  Laura.1  So  great  was  the  mortality  in  the 
city  of  the  papal  residence  that  the  living  were  insuffi¬ 
cient  to  bury  the  dead,  and  the  pope  had  recourse  to  the 
device  of  consecrating  the  Rhone  in  order  to  receive  the 
bodies  which  could  find  no  room  in  the  cemeteries.111  In 
England  the  pestilence  raged  violently,  and  among  its 
victims  was  John  de  Ufford,  whom  the  king,  in  his  anger 


518),  and  was  accompanied  by  earth¬ 
quakes,  floods,  etc.  See  Hecker,  14- 
15.  Rome  suffered  especially  from 
earthquakes  (Gregorov.  vi.  319).  For 
the  ravages  of  the  Black  Death  in 
Greenland,  see  vol.  iv.  p.  115  ;  Hecker, 
28. 

f  This  is  Hecker’s  estimate,  and  he 
puts  the  whole  loss  at  25,000,000  (29). 
Others  say  a  third,  three-fifths,  or  more. 
(Sism.  R.  I.  iv.  252;  Martin,  v.  in.) 
The  *  Eulogium  Historiarum  ’  makes 
the  loss  in  England  one-fifth  (iii.  213). 
Cf.  Cron.  Senese,  120;  Matth.de  Grif- 
fonibus,  in  Murat,  xviii.  167  ;  Henr. 
Hervord.  303-4. 

8  M.  Vill.  i.  1  ;  Anon.  I  talus,  c.  29, 
in  Murat,  xvi.;  Chron.  de  Pisa,  ib.  xv. 
1020.  J.  Villani  himself  gives  an  ac¬ 
count  of  it  in  its  earlier  stages,  xi.  113; 
xii.  83.  Cf.  Antonin.  353.  For  Siena, 
see  the  Cron.  Senese  in  Murat,  xv.  123. 


The  writer  says  that  he  had  buried  five 
of  his  children  with  his  own  hands. 

h  See  Michelet,  iii.  346-9.  Boccaccio 
supplies  a  remarkable  hint  as  to  the 
looseness  of  medieval  statistics —  ‘  *  Oltre 
a  centomilia  creature  umane  si  crede 
per  certo  dentro  alle  mura  della  citth 
di  Firenzi  essere  stati  di  vita  tolti,  che 
forse  anzi  1’accidente  mortifero  non  si 
saria  estimato  tanti  avervene  dentro 
avuti.” — Introd. 

*  Matth.  Neoburg,  in  Urstis.  ii.  147. 
k  The  Pistoian  Chronicle  says  that 
120,000  died  in  three  months.  Murat, 
xi.  524.  Henry  of  Hervorden  speaks 
of  100,000  from  Feb.  1  to  Oct.  r.  274. 

1  1  iraboschi,  v.  462-3.  Petrarch  has 
a  Latin  poem  on  the  pestilence.  1341-2. 

m  J.  Vitodur.  1924 ;  Baluz.  V.  P. 
Aven.  i.  254  ;  Hecker,  24.  See  a  list 
of  the  towns  in  which  the  mortality 
was  greatest,  ib.  22-3. 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1347-8.  THE  “  BLACK  DEATH.” 


1 63 


against  the  Canterbury  monks  for  having  elected  the 
learned  schoolman  Thomas  Bradwardine  without  the 
royal  licence,  had  begged  the  pope  to  appoint  by  pro¬ 
vision  to  the  archbishoprick.  After  the  death  of  his 
rival  (who  had  not  been  consecrated)  Bradwardine  was 
promoted  by  the  consent  of  all  parties,  and  received 
consecration  from  the  pope ;  but  within  a  few  days 
after  landing  in  England  he  too  was  carried  off  by  the 
plague. n  At  Drontheim,  all  the  members  of  the  chapter 
except  one  died ;  and  the  survivor  elected  a  new  arch¬ 
bishop,  without  any  interference  on  the  part  of  the 
crown.0 

The  moral  effects  of  this  visitation  were  not  altogether 
favourable.  In  many  it  produced  a  spirit  of  selfishness 
and  covetousness  and  a  decay  of  charity.p  It  is  said  that 
in  Italy  many  of  the  survivors,  finding  themselves  easier 
in  their  circumstances  through  the  consequences  of  the 
pestilence,  ran  into  all  sorts  of  dissoluteness  and  self- 
indulgence  ;  while  the  lower  classes  of  society,  for  a  like 
reason,  gave  themselves  up  to  idleness  and  dissipation.*1 
In  England,  when  such  persons  of  the  labouring  classes  as 
had  escaped  death  demanded  an  increased  price  for  their 
work,  a  royal  decree  forbade  all  servants,  artisans,  and  the 
like,  to  receive  higher  pay  than  in  former  years.  In  con¬ 
sequence  of  this,  such  persons  found  that,  as  the  cost  of 
living  was  increased,  their  state  was  worse  than  before ;  and 
their  discontent  was  shared  by  the  lower  clergy.  For  a 
time  the  surviving  members  of  this  class  had  found  their 
services  so  much  in  request,  as  curates  or  chaplains,  that 

n  W.  de  Dene,  Hist.  Roffensis,  in  in  a  letter  of  this  date,  where  they 
Wharton,  i.  375;  Lingard,  iii.  154,  seqq.  ;  charge  the  bishop  of  London  to  enjoin 
Hook,  iv.  103,  106,  109,  115,  seqq.  It  on  other  bishops  of  the  province  the 
was  noted  that  in  Ireland,  although  observation  of  prayers,  masses,  proces- 
the  English  suffered,  the  natives  were  sions,  etc.,  for  deliverance  from  the 
exempt.  (Ling.  iii.  155.)  The  authority  plague.  Wilkins,  ii.  738. 
belonging  to  the  prior  and  convent  of  0  Miinter,  ii.  68. 

Christchurch,  Canterbury,  during  a  P  W.  Nang.  cont.  10c. 
vacancy  of  the  see,  is  remarkably  shown  ^  M.  Vill.  1.  c. 


164  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  u  BLACK  DEATH.”  Book  VIII. 


they  had  insisted  on  receiving  four  or  five  times  as  much 
as  before ;  and,  in  consequence  of  this,  many  laymen 
who  had  lost  their  wives  by  the  pestilence  pressed  into 
the  ministry  of  the  church,  without  any  other  qualification 
than  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  reading.1-  But  through 
this  multiplication  of  their  numbers,  combined  with  the 
increase  of  prices  and  with  the  diminution  of  fees  which 
followed  on  the  decrease  of  population,  the  condition  of 
the  lower  clergy  speedily  became  worse  than  it  had  ever 
been  before. s  Even  on  monastic  discipline  it  is  said  that 
the  Black  Death  told  unfavourably ;  as  in  many  places 
the  older  and  more  experienced  monks  were  carried  off, 
and  those  who  succeeded  them  were  unable  or  unwilling 
to  enforce  the  rules  with  the  strictness  of  former  times.1 

This  great  calamity  was  naturally  followed  by  out¬ 
breaks  of  superstitious  terror.  The  Jews  were  suspected 
of  having  poisoned  the  wells  and  infected  the  air ;  some 
of  them  were  tortured  into  a  confession  of  these  crimes, 
and  multitudes  of  the  unfortunate  people  suffered  death. u 
In  some  places  the  Jews  were  driven  by  despair  to  attack 
the  Christians  ;  at  Mentz  they  killed  about  200,  and  the 
act  was  avenged  by  a  butchery  of  12,000  Jews.x  The 


r  Knyghton  in  Twysd.  2600  ;  W.  de 
Dene,  in  Wharton,  i.  375.  There  is  a 
letter  from  the  pope  to  the  archbishop  of 
York,  authorizing  him  to  confer  orders 
at  other  times  than  the  Ember  seasons, 
with  a  view  to  supplying  the  lack  of 
clergy.  Letters  from  the  Northern 
Registers  (Chron.  and  Mem.)  401. 

8  See  Steph.  Birch  ingt  on,  in  Whar¬ 
ton,  i.  42  ;  W.  de  Dene,  1.  c. ;  Bergen- 
roth’s  Essay  on  Wat  Tyler  (appended 
tc  Mr.  Cartwright’s  Memoir  of  him, 
Edin.  1870).  In  ‘  Pierce  the  Plough¬ 
man’s  Vision  ’  we  read  : — 

“  Parsons  and  parisshe  preestes 
Pleyned  them  to  the  bishope. 

That  hire  parisshes  weren  povero 
Sith  the  pestilence  tyme, 

To  have  a  licence  and  leve, 


At  London  for  to  dwelle. 

And  syngen  ther  for  symonie  ; 

For  silver  is  swete." 

(165,  seqq.,  ed.  Wright,  London,  1842.) 

*  Wadding,  a.d.  1348.  2  (from  Anto¬ 
ninus). 

u  Froissart,  iii.  22 ;  Baluz  V.  P. 
Aven.  255,  314;  Gesta  Abbat.  Tru- 
don.  in  Pertz,  x.  432  ;  C.  Zantfl.  in 
Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  v.  253  ;  Hecker,  38, 
43.  The  continuer  of  William  of  Nan- 
gis  says,  “  Sed  revera  tales  intoxica- 
tiones,  posito  quod  factte  fuissent,  non 
potuissent  tantam  plagam  et  tantum 
populum  infecisse  (no).  See,  too, 
the  remarks  of  Herman  of  Lerbeke, 
a  Dominican  of  the  15th  century,  in 
Leibnitz,  ii.  291. 

x  H.  Rebdorff,  444. 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1349. 


FLAGELLANTS. 


165 

persecution  raged  especially  in  the  towns  along  the  Rhine; 
and  when  the  pope  threw  his  protection  over  the  Jews, 
the  age  was  so  little  able  to  apprehend  any  good  motive 
for  such  humanity  that  he  was  commonly  supposed  to 
have  been  bribed.^  The  end  of  the  world  was  believed 
to  be  at  hand.  The  fanaticism  of  the  flagellants,  which 
had  been  first  known  in  the  preceding  century,2  and  of 
which  there  had  since  been  some  smaller  displays, a  was 
now  revived.  The  flagellants  professed  to  have  come 
into  Germany  from  Hungary, b  and  displayed  a  letter 
which  an  angel  was  said  to  have  brought  down  to  Jeru¬ 
salem,  declaring  the  Saviour’s  wrath  against  mankind  for 
profanation  of  the  Lord’s  day,  for  neglect  of  fasting,  for 
blasphemy,  usury,  adultery,  and  other  sins.c  They  went 
about  half-naked,  singing,  and  scourging  themselves ;  and 
they  declared  that  the  blood  which  was  thus  shed  was 
mingled  with  that  of  the  Redeemer,  and  that  it  superseded 
the  necessity  of  the  sacraments. d  When  the  Saviour’s 
passion  was  mentioned  in  their  hymns,  they  threw  them¬ 
selves  on  the  earth  “  like  logs  of  wood,”  with  their  arms 
extended  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  and  remained  prostrate 
in  prayer  until  a  signal  was  given  to  rise.e  They  were 
under  “ masters”  of  their  own,  to  whom  all  that  joined 


y  Matth.  Neoburg.  147-9  >  Baluz.  i. 
882-3.  Andrew  of  Ratisbon  argues  that 
a  persecution  of  the  Jews  in  1338  was 
clearly  a  matter  of  the  Divine  venge¬ 
ance,  because  princes  and  officials  failed 
in  their  endeavours  to  stop  it.  (Eccard, 
i.  2104.)  On  a  return  of  the  pestilence 
in  1362,  more  than  1000  Jews  were 
slain  in  Poland,  although  the  king,  in 
consideration  of  their  gifts,  wished  to 
save  them.  M.  Vill.  ix.  107. 
z  See  vol.  vi.  p.  236. 
a  As  in  Italy  in  1310  (Ptol.  Luc.  in 
Murat,  xi.  1223),  again  in  1333-4  (Gre- 
gorov.  vi.  190),  and  at  Avignon  in  1334 
(Petrarc.  Senil.  ix.  2,  p.  949).  See 
Fdrstemann,  4  Die  Christ!.  Geisslerge- 


sellschaften,’  Halle,  1828,  54,  63. 

b  This,  however,  according  to  Forste- 
mann  (70),  is  stated  only  by  the  later 
writers,  as  Trithemius. 

c  Matth.  Neoburg.  149,  150;  Forste- 
mann,  70,  seqq. ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  314. 
(As  to  such  letters,  see  vol.  v.  pp.  404-5.) 
D’Argentre  is  very  full  on  this  case  of 
flagellancy,  i.  361,  seqq. 

d  Chron.  Elwac.  a.d.  1348-9,  in 
Pertz,  x.;  Gesta  Abb.  Trud.,  ib.  632  ; 
W.  Nang,  contin.  iii  ;  H.  Rebdorff. 
439 ;  H.  Corner,  1083-4  Th.  Niem 
in  Eccard,  i.  1504. 

e  Henr.  Hervord.  281.  See  Fors- 
tem.  75. 


i66 


FRIARS  AND  SECULAR  CLERGY. 


Book  VIII. 


them  were  required  to  swear  obedience,  and  their  be¬ 
haviour  towards  the  clergy  was  hostile  and  menacing.1 
From  Germany  the  movement  spread  into  France,  but 
the  king  forbade  the  flagellants  to  approach  the  capital, 
and  the  university  of  Paris  pronounced  their  practices 
to  be  a  “vain  superstition.”  At  the  instance  of  the 
university,  flagellancy  wras  condemned  by  the  pope, g  and 
at  his  desire  it  was  forbidden  by  the  royal  authority.11 
Some  of  the  flagellants  carried  their  fanaticism  from 
the  Low  Countries  into  England  ;  but  the  English  looked 
on  their  wild  exercises  with  indifference,  and  suspected 
them  of  heresy.1 

In  many  towns  the  parochial  clergy  fled  from  the 
pestilence,  and  their  places  were  taken  by  the  more 
courageous  friars,  who  visited  the  sick,  administered  the 
last  sacraments,  and  performed  the  offices  of  burial. k 
This  devotion  was  rewarded  with  large  bequests,  espe¬ 
cially  from  persons  who  had  lost  their  natural  heirs and 
a  complaint  was  made  to  the  pope  by  the  cardinals  and 
the  secular  clergy,  who  desired  that  the  mendicant  orders 
should  be  suppressed  for  interfering  with  the  parochial 
system  of  the  church.  But  Clement,  according  to  a 


1  Gesta  Abb.  Trud.  1.  c.  ;  Matth. 
Neoburg.  150;  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i. 
320  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  315.  In  a  town  of 
the  diocese  of  Bamberg,  the  Jews 
attacked  the  flagellants,  killed  about 
fourteen,  and  set  fire  to  the  place.  H. 
Rebd.  440. 

s  Oct.  20,  1349.  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven. 
i.  316;  Mansi,  xxv.  1153;  Matth.  Neo¬ 
burg.  150,  159;  W.  Nang.  cont.  1.  c.; 
D’Argentrd,  i.  364.  The  flagellants  in¬ 
vited  the  pope  to  join  them.  Mailath, 
Gesch.  v.  Oestreich,  i.  142. 

h  Froissart,  iii.  21-2. 

1  lb.  21-2 ;  Pauli,  iv.  418.  The  pope 
had  desired  Edward  either  to  keep 
them  out  of  England,  or,  if  they  were 
admitted,  to  compel  them  by  moderate 
means  to  give  up  their  follies  and  errors 


(Rayn.  1349.  22).  Archbishop  Islip, 
although  urged  by  Clement  to  proceed 
against  them,  let  them  alone.  Hook, 
iv.  118-21. 

k  W.  Nang,  contin.  no  :  Martin,  v. 
iii.  The  Franciscans  are  said  to  have 
lost  124,434  members  in  Germany, 
and  30,000  in  Italy  by  the  pestilence. 
Hecker,  23  (quoting,  however,  an  au¬ 
thor  who  describes  many  of  them  as 
lazy  “  Tropfen  ”). 

1  W.  Nang.  cont.  no.  The  annalist 
of  Parma,  however,  says  that  the  sick 
were  abandoned  by  friars  as  well  as  by 
servants,  doctors,  notaries,  and  priests, 
“  tal  che  non  potevano  testare,  ne  con- 
fessi  o  contriti  assoluti  morire.  ”  M  urat. 
xii.  746. 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1347-9. 


CHARLES  IV. 


167 


writer  who  himself  belonged  to  the  mendicant  brother¬ 
hood  of  Carmelites,  rebuked  the  objectors  severely.  He 
asked  them  what  they  themselves  would  preach  if  the 
monks  were  silent  ?  He  told  them  that  if  they  were  to 
preach  humility,  poverty,  and  chastity,  their  exhortations 
would  be  vitiated  by  the  glaring  contrast  of  their  own 
pride  and  luxury,  their  avarice  and  greed,  and  the  noto¬ 
rious  laxity  of  their  lives.  He  reproached  them  for 
closing  their  doors  against  the  mendicants,  while  they 
opened  them  to  panders  and  buffoons.111  If,  he  said,  the 
mendicants  had  got  some  benefit  from  those  whose  death¬ 
beds  they  had  attended,  it  was  a  reward  of  the  zeal  and 
the  courage  which  they  had  shown  while  the  secular 
clergy  fled  from  their  posts;  if  they  had  erected  buildings 
with  the  money,  it  was  better  spent  so  than  in  worldly 
and  sensual  pleasures ;  and  he  declared  the  opposition 
to  the  friars  to  b.e  merely  the  result  of  envy.n  The 
rebuke  carried  weight  from  its  truth,  if  not  from  the 
character  of  the  pope  who  uttered  it. 

IV.  Although  the  death  of  Lewis  of  Bavaria  had 
removed  a  great  obstacle  from  the  path  of  his  rival 
Charles,  the  “  priests’  emperor  ”  found  that  his  diffi¬ 
culties  were  not  yet  ended.  In  going  about  the  cities  of 
Germany,  attended  by  clergy  who  offered  the  pope’s 
absolution  from  ban  and  interdict,  on  condition  that  the 
people  should  renounce  the  late  emperor  and  all  his 
family,  he  met  with  hostile  demonstrations  in  some 
places.0  Thus  at  Basel,  when  the  bull  announcing  the 
terms  of  absolution  was  read,  the  mayor  of  the  city*1 
stood  forward,  and  addressing  the  pope’s  commissioner, 
the  bishop  of  Bamberg,  declared  that  the  citizens  of 

m  “Truffatores.”  ciliation  of  interdicted  towns.  J.  Vito- 

n  W.  Nang,  contin.  112.  dur.  1925. 

0  Matth.  Neoburg,  in  Urstis.  ii.  142.  p  “Magister  civitatis.”  M.  Necb. 
Disgust  was  caused  by  the  high  fees  143. 
which  the  clergy  exacted  for  the  recon- 


i68 


CHARLES  IV.  ESTABLISHED 


Book  VIII. 


Basel  did  not  believe  the  emperor  Lewis  to  have  been  a 
heretic  ;  that  they  were  resolved  to  acknowledge  as  king 
and  emperor  any  one  who  should  be  chosen  by  the 
electors,  or  by  a  majority  of  them,  without  requiring  the 
pope’s  confirmation  of  the  choice  ;  that  they  would  do 
nothing  contrary  to  the  rights  of  the  empire,  but  were 
willing  to  accept  the  pope’s  forgiveness  of  all  their  sins, 
if  he  should  be  pleased  to  bestow  it.  By  this  firmness 
an  unconditional  absolution  was  extorted.q  In  other 
towns  the  emperor’s  arrival  was  the  signal  for  scenes  of 
disorder.1-  Many  of  the  most  religious  persons,  such  as 
the  famous  mystic  John  Tauler,  of  Strasburg,s  regarded  the 
pope’s  proceedings  against  Lewis  as  unjust  and  invalid ; 1 
and,  as  at  some  earlier  times,  the  impatience  of  the  papal 
rule  gave  rise  to  a  popular  expectation  that  the  emperor 
Frederick  II.  would  reappear,  to  destroy  the  clergy  and 
the  friars,  and  to  restore  the  glories  of  the  enrpire.u 

The  Bavarian  party,  headed  by  Henry  of  Virneburg, 
who  was  still  acknowledged  by  most  of  the  Germans  as 
archbishop  of  Mentz,  endeavoured  to  set  up  an  emperor 
of  its  own.x  The  crown,  after  having  been  declined  by 
some  German  princes,  was  offered  to  Edward 
J  of  England,  whose  fame  had  lately  been 
enhanced  by  the  victory  of  CressyH  but  Edward,  in 
deference  to  the  opinion  of  his  parliament,  and  fearing 
that  the  offer  might  be  intended  to  divert  him  from  the 
prosecution  of  his  designs  on  France,  refused  it.z  At 
length  a  champion  was  found  in  count  Gunther  of  Schwarz- 


q  M.  Neob.  143 ;  Olensl.  382.  On 
Christmas-day  Charles  at  Basel  read  the 
gospel  of  the  decree  of  Caesar  Augustus 
at  early  mass,  “alta  voce,  habens  in 
manu  evaginatumgladium.”  M.  Neob. 
1.  c.  r  lb.  144. 

8  See  below,  ch.  x. 

1  Giesel.  II.  iii.  83. 

“It  was  said  that,  although  the  em¬ 
peror  might  be  cut  into  a  thousand 


pieces,  or  even  burnt  to  dust,  this  must 
be  fulfilled,  because  it  was  God’s  de¬ 
cree.  J.  Vitodur.  1928;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
85 ;  cf.  ii.  650.  x  Schmidt,  iii.  606. 

y  Knyghton(in  Twysaen,  2596)  says 
that  some  of  the  electors  wished  to 
choose  him,  “  velut  dignissimum,  stre- 
nuissimum,  et  validissimum  militem 
sub  Christianismo.  ” 
z  lb.  2597  G.  Vill.  xii.  105 ;  Matth. 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1348-9.  AS  KING  O.F  THE  ROMANS. 


169 


burg,  in  Thuringia,  a  man  of  great  renown  for  prowess, 
but  of  no  considerable  territory  or  power.a  Gunther 
was  elected  by  his  partizans  on  the  30th  of  January  1349, 
was  displayed  on  the  high  altar  of  St.  Bartholomew’s  at 
Frankfort  as  king,  and  was  enthroned  in  the  same  city  ;b 
but  he  found  few  adherents,  and  after  a  time  his  chief 
supporters  were  gained  over  to  the  side  of  Charles  by 
means  of  matrimonial  alliances  or  other  inducements.0 
Gunther  himself,  who  had  been  attacked  by  a  hopeless 
illness,  was  persuaded,  although  unwillingly,  to  resign  his 
pretensions,  chiefly  in  consideration  of  a  large  sum  of 
money. d  The  Bavarian  party  was  conciliated  by  Charles’s 
undertaking  to  get  the  papal  sanction  for  the  marriage  of 
Lewis  of  Brandenburg  with  Margaret  of  the  Tyrol  ;e  and 
Lewis  made  over  to  Charles  the  insignia  of  the  empire, 
which  had  come  into  his  hands  at  his  father’s  death.f 
Thus  Charles  acquired  peaceable  possession  of  his  dignity, 
to  which,  according  to  some  writers,  he  submitted  to  be 
again  elected,  so  that  the  honour  of  the  empire  might 
be  formally  saved,  although  the  acceptance  of  the  pope’s 
nominee  proved  that  the  electors  were  no  longer  inclined 
to  oppose  the  papacy.g 

The  character  of  Charles  as  a  sovereign  is  very  differ¬ 
ently  estimated  by  the  Germans  and  by  the  Bohemians ; 
but  their  estimates  are  not  inconsistent.  To  the  Germans 


Neob.  145  ;  Olensl.  385-9  ;  Pauli,  iv. 
4i5- 

a  Matth.  Neob.  150  ;  Olensl.  399  ; 
Palacky,  II.  ii.  283. 
b  See  Olensl.  Urk.  101-2. 
c  lb.  p.  406. 

d  Matth.  Neob.  152 ;  Plenr.  Her- 
vord.  276;  Olensl.  Urk.  105-6.  Gun¬ 
ther  died  on  the  12th  of  June  1349 — 
of  course  not  without  suspicion  of 
poison.  Annal.  Ensdorf.  in  Pertz,  xvi. 
7  Matth.  Neoburg.  151  ;  Baluz.  V. 
P.  Aven.  i.  251  Trithem.  Chron. 
Spanh.  a.d.  1349*  Palacky,  II.  ii. 
286  Olensl.  407. 


e  Her  divorce  from  her  first  husband 
was  soon  after  pronounced  by  the 
bishop  of  Chur.  H.  Rebd.  445.  See 
P-  13  7- 

f  H.  Hervord.  258,  276.  In  conse¬ 
quence  of  this,  Charles  persuaded  the 
pope  to  institute  a  festival  in  honour 
of  the  signs  of  the  Saviour’s  passion. 
H.  Rebd.  441,  446,  452  ;  Balbinus, 
Miscell.  Hist.  xlvi. 

s  Palacky,  after  Pelzel,  indignantly 
denies  the  new  election,  and  says  that 
Charles  was  crowned  a  second  time 
merely  in  connexion  with  the  crowning 
of  his  queen  at  Aix.  II.  ii.  287. 


170 


CHARLES  IV. 


Book  VIII. 


he  appeared  to  neglect  the  empire  for  the  interests  of  his 
family,  which  he  laboured  to  secure  by  marriages  and 
peaceful  negotiations  rather  than  by  the  more  brilliant 
exploits  which  accorded  with  the  taste  of  the  age;h  while 
in  his  hereditary  kingdom,  which  he  had  governed  as  his 
father’s  deputy  while  John  was  seeking  adventures  all 
over  Europe,1  his  name  is  honoured  above  those  of  all 
other  sovereigns  for  his  good  administration,  and  for  his 
patronage  of  literature  and  the  arts.  To  him  Prague  was 
indebted  for  its  splendour  as  a  capital  and  for  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  its  university,11  which  drew  to  it  a  vast  concourse 
of  students,  not  only  from  the  Slavonic  countries,  but 
from  all  parts  of  Germany — as  in  that  country  no  such 
institution  yet  existed.1 


V.  Notwithstanding  the  late  mortality,  and  the  dangers 
which  in  a  time  of  such  disorder  beset  the  ways,  the 
jubilee  of  1350  drew  vast  multitudes  of  pilgrims  to  Rome. 
Many  persons  of  the  higher  classes,  indeed,  availed  them¬ 
selves  of  the  dispensations  which  the  pope  offered  to 
those  who  should  be  prevented  from  undertaking  the 
journey.m  And  Edward  of  England,  although  he  granted 


h  Aventinus,  639.  See  Schmidt,  iii. 
616 ;  Sism.  R.  I.  iv.  379 ;  Hallam, 
M.A.  i.  447  ;  Bryce,  269. 

i  See  his  autobiography  in  Bdhmer, 
Fontes,  i,  247-64. 

k  Baluz.  iv.  313  ;  Schrockh,  xxx.  93- 
6.  The  pope’s  charter  is  given  by 
Rayn.  1347.  11. 

1  JE n.  Sylv.  Hist.  Bohem.  c.  33  ; 
Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  322  ;  Matth. 
Neoburg.  155.  See  Palacky  II.  ii.  197, 
294-8,  and  the  concluding  chapter  of 
the  volume.  Also  J.  Trithem.  Chron. 
Spanh.  a.d.  1360 ;  Chron.  Hirsaug. 
1360.  Balbinus  calls  him  “patriae 
pater,  at  verius  mater.”  (Epit.  Rer. 
Bohem.,  Prag.  1677,  p.  350;  cf.  353, 
358,  381.)  Charles  is  also  lauded  for 
having  enriched  Bohemia  with  many 


precious  relics.  See  a  list  in  Acta  SS. 
Jan.  t.  i.  1084  ;  also  Balbinus,  Misc. 
Hist.  Dec.  I.,  Nos.  xlii.-xlvii.;  Chron. 
Marienwerd.  in  Leibn.  ii.  442  ;  Acta 
SS.  Apr.  21,  p.'863  (as  to  a  relic  of  St. 
Anselm),  etc. 

m  M .  Vill.  i.  56.  See  the  bull  “  Uni- 
genitus,”  in  Extrav.  Comm.  1.  v.  De 
Pcenit.  c.  2.  Another  ball,  “  Cum  na- 
tura  humana,”  is  famous  as  making  the 
pope  assume  a  power  over  the  angelic 
hierarchy  (“  Mandamus  angelis  para- 
disi,  quatenus  animam  illius  ...  in 
paradisi  gloriam  introducant.”  P.  He- 
rentals,  in  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  313). 
But  these  words  are  wanting  in  some 
copies,  and  the  genuineness  of  the  whole 
bull  is  questioned,  as  by  Baluze  in  his 
notes.  Wyclif  speaks  of  the  passage 


Chap.  III.  a.d.  1350. 


THE  JUBILEE. 


171 

* 

licenses  for  the  pilgrimage,11  forbade  his  subjects  in 
general  to  take  part  in  it,  alleging  the  necessities  of  war  in 
answer  to  Clement’s  remonstrances  on  the  subject.  Yet 
Matthew  Villani  states  that  the  number  of  those  who 
visited  Rome  from  Christmas  to  Easter  was  1,000,000  or 
1,200,000,  and  that  in  the  season  of  the  Ascension  and 
Whitsuntide  there  were  800,000  more.0  The  same  writer 
tells  us  that  the  streets  leading  to  the  churches  which 
were  to  be  visited — St.  Peter’s,  St.  Paul’s,  and  St.  John 
Lateranp — were  so  crowded  as  to  admit  of  no  movement 
except  with  the  stream  of  the  multitude ;  and  that  the 
Romans  were  extortionate  as  to  the  prices  of  lodging, 
food,  fodder,  and  other  necessaries.q  Another  chronicler, 
who  was  present,  tells  us  that  at  the  exhibition  of  the 
Veronica  many  were  crushed  to  death.1  The  numbers 
of  the  pilgrims  must  probably  have  been  swelled  by  the 
serious  impressions  of  the  late  calamity ;  and  while  Mat¬ 
thew  Villani  describes  them  on  their  journey  as  cheerfully 
braving  the  inconveniences  of  an  unfavourable  season, s 
the  interest  with  which  the  more  pious  might  view  the 
decayed  but  venerable  city,  and  the  relics  of  especial 
fame  for  holiness  which  were  displayed  before  their  eyes, 
may  be  conceived  from  the  fervent  language  of  Petrarch. * 
Yet,  as  to  the  result  of  the  pilgrimage,  we  may  probably 


with  doubt  (Trial,  iv.  32,  p.  357),  but 
Hus  and  others  near  the  time  assume 
its  genuineness.  (Hus  de  Eccles., 
Opera,  i.  219.)  See  on  the  whole  ques¬ 
tion,  Gieseler,  II.  iii.  290-2,  who  thinks 
that  the  bull  is  certainly  spurious,  and 
that  it  was  probably  forged  in  the  in¬ 
terest  of  the  Romans,  who  wished  to 
attract  pilgrims  for  the  sake  of  their 
money. 

n  Rymer,  iii.  200,  203. 

0  i-  56.  See,  as  to  this  estimate, 
Murat.  VIII.  ii.  159  ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
318,  who  think  it  exaggerated  ;  also 
Baluz.  i.  316. 


P  The  Lateran  was  now  for  the  first 
time  included  in  the  list.  Gobel.  Per¬ 
sona,  in  Meibohm.  i.  291. 

1  M.  Vill.  i.  56.  Petrarch  says  that, 
although  the  lands  about  Rome  had 
not  been  tilled,  and  the  vines  had 
generally  been  destroyed  by  frost,  there 
was  greater  plenty  after  the  vast  mul¬ 
titude  had  been  fed  than  before.  Epp. 
Senil.  vii.  p.  910. 
r  Rebdorff,  440.  *  i.  56. 

1  Ep.  Famil.  ii.  9 ;  see  Rayn.  1350.  1. 
Rome  had  been  much  damaged  by 
an  earthquake  in  the  preceding  year. 
H.  Rebd.  406. 


172 


DEATH  OF  CLEMENT  VI. 


Book  VIII. 


believe  a  contemporary  chronicler’s  statement,  that  many 
came  back  from  Rome  worse  than  before.11 

On  the  6th  of  December  1352  Clement  suddenly  died 
in  consequence  of  the  bursting  of  a  tumour, x  having  in 
the  preceding  year  mitigated  the  law  of  papal  elections 
by  allowing  that  the  cardinals,  when  shut  up  in  conclave, 
should  have  their  portions  of  the  room  separated  by  cur¬ 
tains  ;  that  each  of  them  might  have  two  attendants,  who 
might  be  either  clerks  or  laymen  ;  and  that  the  rigour  of 
the  regulations  as  to  the  supply  of  food  should  be  abated 
on  the  third  day.y 


CHAPTER  IV. 

FROM  THE  ELECTION  OF  POPE  INNOCENT  VI.  TO  THE 

DEATH  OF  GREGORY  XI. 


A.D.  1352-1378. 


At  the  death  of  Clement  VI.  the  cardinals  had  reason 
to  suppose  that  John,  who  in  1350  had  succeeded  to  the 
crown  of  France,  would  endeavour  to  set  up  a  pope  of 
his  own  nomination ;  and,  notwithstanding  their  devotion 
to  the  French  interest,  they  resolved  to  preserve  a  show  of 
independence  by  making  their  election  before  any  intima¬ 
tion  of  the  royal  will  could  reach  them.  It  seemed  as  if 
John  Birelli,  general  of  the  Carthusian  order,  were  about 
to  be  chosen;  but  cardinal  Talleyrand  warned  his  brethren 
that  the  Carthusian,  if  he  were  to  become  pope,  would 
reduce  them  to  primitive  simplicity  of  living,  and  would 

u  Limburger  Chronik,  quoted  by  y  lb.  261 ;  Rayn.  1351.  39  ;  Cart- 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  285.  x  Baluz.  i.  318.  wright  on  Papal  Conclaves,  105. 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1352. 


INNOCENT  VI. 


173 


degrade  their  splendid  horses  to  drag  the  waggon  or  the 
ploughs  The  cardinals  then  determined  to  choose  one 
of  their  own  number,  under  a  system  of  capitulation  such 
as  had  sometimes  been  practised  in  elections  of  bishops, 
and  had  lately  been  usual  in  the  elections  of  emperors. 
Every  member  of  the  college  was  to  swear  that,  if  chosen, 
he  would  make  no  new  cardinals  until  the  college  should 
be  reduced  to  sixteen ;  that  he  would  never  raise  their 
number  to  more  than  twenty ;  that  he  would  not  create, 
depose,  or  arrest  any  cardinal  without  the  consent  of  the 
whole  body ;  and  that  he  would  make  over  to  the  cardinals 
one-half  of  the  revenues  of  the  Roman  church. b  By  these 
terms  the  future  pope  would  have  bound  himself  to  be¬ 
come  a  tool  of  the  cardinals ;  and,  although  all  took  the 
oath,  some  of  them  did  so  with  the  reservation  “provided 
that  these  laws  be  agreeable  to  right.”* 

On  the  1 8th  of  December  the  choice  of  the  cardinals 
fell  on  Stephen  Aubert,  a  Limousin,  bishop  of  Ostia,  a 
man  eminent  for  his  learning  in  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
law,  who  styled  himself  Innocent  VI.d  Soon  after  his 
election,  the  new  pope  took  advantage  of  the  reservation 
which  he  had  made  in  swearing  to  the  late  agreement,, 
by  declaring  that  he  had  found  such  engagements  to  be 
contrary  to  the  decrees  of  some  former  popes  ;  and  also 
that  they  were  void  for  attempting  to  limit  the  power 
which  God  had  bestowed  on  St.  Peter  and  his  successors. 
And  the  cardinals,  who  seem  to  have  become  aware 
of  the  evils  which  might  result  from  such  capitulations, 
acquiesced  in  this  determination.6 

Innocent  betook  himself  earnestly  to  the  work  of 
ecclesiastical  reform.  He  did  away  with  the  system  of 
reserves,  and  in  his  bull  for  that  purpose  he  dwelt  on  the 

•  Rayn.  1352.  23.  “  Homo  bonus,  simplex,  et  justus.” 

b  lb.  26;  Planck,  v.  384-6.  W.  Nang.  cont.  112. 

e  Rayn.  1352.  27.  e  Baluz.  i.  357  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  202; 

d  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  321,  357.  Planck,  v.  306-7. 


T74 


INNOCENT  VI. 


Book  VIII. 


mischiefs  which  had  arisen  from  them — such  as  the  neg¬ 
lect  of  pastoral  care,  the  dilapidation  of  churches,  and  the 
decay  of  hospitality.1  He  abolished  many  of  the  corrup¬ 
tions  of  the  court,  and  did  much  to  restrain  the  extortion 
of  his  officials.5  He  suppressed  the  scandalous  abuse 
by  which  prostitutes  had  been  allowed,  on  payment 
of  a  tax  to  the  papal  treasury,  to  ply  their  trade  at 
Avignon.  He  insisted  on  an  abatement  of  the  excessive 
luxury  in  which  the  cardinals  had  indulged,  and  himself 
set  an  example  in  this  respect ; h  and  those  members  of 
the  college  who  offended  him  by  their  laxity  of  life  w'ere 
awed  by  threats  that  he  would  remove  the  court  to  Rome.1 
The  bishops  who  haunted  Avignon  were  compelled  to 
return  to  their  diocesesA  He  discouraged  pluralities  : 
there  is  a  story  that  when  a  favourite  chaplain,  who  held 
seven  benefices,  asked  for  some  preferment  in  behalf  of  a 
nephew,  Innocent  desired  him  to  give  up  to  the  young 
man  the  best  of  his  own  preferments ;  and,  as  the  chap¬ 
lain  showed  dissatisfaction  at  this,  he  was  further  required 
to  resign  three  other  livings,  each  of  which  the  pope 
bestowed  on  a  poor  clerk.1  Innocent  wras  careful  in  the 
disposal  of  his  patronage  ;  and,  although  he  is  charged 
with  too  great  fondness  for  advancing  his  own  relations, 
it  is  admitted  that  in  general  the  kinsmen  whom  he  pro¬ 
moted  did  him  no  discredit.111 

Innocent  was  able  to  act  with  an  independence  un¬ 
known  to  the  earlier  Avignon  popes;  for  king  John, 


f  Baluz.  i.  357 ;  M.  Vill.  ix.  93 ; 
Matth.  Neob.  156. 

s  Baluz.  i.  343.  Platina  tells  us  that 
he  assigned  salaries  to  the  auditors  of 
the  court — “  Dicebat  enim  famelicos 
non  facile  etiam  ab  alieno  cibo  abstinere, 
si  sit  oblata  quovis  modo  edendi  facul- 
tas.”  261. 

h  Baluz.  i.  357  ;  Dollinger,  ii.  271. 

*  M.  Vill.  iv.  298. 

k  It  has  been  supposed  that  this  order 


was  very  little  enforced,  because  70  or 
100  bishops  are  said  to  have  died  at 
Avignon  during  a  renewed  visitation 
of  the  plague  in  1361  ;  but  Matthew 
Villani  states  the  mortality  of  “prelates 
[under  which  name  others  than  bishops 
are  included]  and  great  clerks”  at 
somewhat  more  than  seventy,  x.  46. 
See  Hist.  Langued.  iv.  3x3  ;  Schrbckh, 
xxxi.  203. 

1  Baluz.  i.  361-2.  m  lb.  343, 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1352.  ITALY - THE  VISCONTI. 


175 


weakened  by  the  disastrous  war  with  England,  in  which 
he  himself  was  made  a  captive  at  Poitiers,  Sept.  19, 
was  unable  to  exercise  a  control  like  that  of  *356. 
Philip  the  Fair,  or  of  his  own  father,  Philip  of  Valois.11 

In  the  meantime  Italy  was  a  prey  to  disorder.  While 
every  division  of  the  country  had  its  own  little  tyrant,0 
the  Milanese  family  of  Visconti p  had  gained  such  a 
predominance  in  the  north  that  the  ancient  parties  of 
Guelfs  and  Ghibellines  forgot  their  enmities  in  order  to 
combine  against  a  foe  who  threatened  them  all.q  On  the 
death  of  Lucchino  Visconti,  in  1348,  the  lordship  of 
Milan  fell  to  his  brother  John,1'  who  was  already  arch¬ 
bishop  of  the  city.s  By  violently  seizing  on  Bologna,  a 
city  which  belonged  to  the  pope,  he  incurred  threats  of 
excommunication  and  deprivation  from  Clement  VI. ; 
but  by  bribing  the  king  of  France  and  other  powerful 
intercessors,  including  that  pope’s  favourite,  the  countess 
of  Turenne,u  he  was  afterwards  able  to  make  terms,  and 
was  allowed  to  retain  the  place  for  twelve 
years,  on  condition  of  paying  tributes  It  May  r^2* 
is  said  that,  when  required  by  a  legate  to  choose  between 
the  characters  of  archbishop  and  secular  prince,  he  desired 


n  Martin,  v.  377. 

0  Rayn.  1350.  6. 

P  For  curious  legends  as  to  their 
origin,  see  Andr.  Ratisb.  in  Pez,  IV. 
iii.  602. 

•J  Sism.  iv.  352.  Mansi  notes  that 
the  old  party  names  subsided  about 
t  s  time.  N.  in  Rayn.  t.  vi.  53. 

r  P.  Azarius,  11  (Murat,  xvi.). 

8  Matthew  Villani  habitually  call 
John  “ il  tiranno”  (i.  93,  etc.,):  “Hicfui 
potentissimus  tyrannus  totius  mundi.” 
(Chron.  Regiense,  in  Murat,  xviii.  76. 
St.  Antoninus  styles  him  “praesul 
et  tyrannus”  (357;  cf.  355,  359,  361). 
There  is  a  curious  mixture  of  eulogy 
on  the  bishop’s  secular  pomp  and  on  his 
ecclesiastical  merits  in  his  chaplain, 


Gualv.  Fiamma  (Murat,  xii.  1046. 
Cf.  Murat.  Annal.  VIII.  ii.  15;  Pe- 
trarc.  Variar.  7,  ed.  Fracassetti).  He 
had  been  made  a  cardinal  by  the  anti¬ 
pope  Nicolas  at  the  request  of  the  em¬ 
peror,  but  had  afterwards  resigned  the 
title,  and  submitted  to  John  XXII. 
Cron,  di  Bologna,  in  Murat,  xviii.  352. 

1  Rayn.  1350.  7  ;  1351.  27,  seqq. 

u  M.  Vill.  iii.  2. 

x  lb.  4  ;  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i. 
252.  The  archbishop  was  supposed  to 
have  been  concerned  in  a  letter  which 
mysteriously  made  its  way  into  the 
papal  consistory — written  in  the  name 
of  the  “  Prince  of  Darkness,”  and 
strongly  reproving  the  vices  of  the 
court.  M.  Vill.  ii.  48. 


176 


FREE  COMPANIES. 


Book  VIII. 


that  the  message  might  be  repeated  in  the  face  of  his 
clergy  and  people ;  and  when  this  was  done  on  the  fol¬ 
lowing  Sunday,  after  he  had  celebrated  mass  with  great 
pomp,  he  rose  from  his  throne,  holding  in  one  hand  his 
crosier,  and  in  the  other  his  drawn  sword — “  These,”  he 
said,  “  are  my  arms  spiritual  and  temporal ;  and  with  the 
one  I  will  defend  the  other.”  He  signified,  however,  his 
willingness  to  appear  at  Avignon  ;  but  the  proceedings  of 
his  harbingers,  who  set  about  hiring  all  the  houses  that 
could  be  got  in  the  city  and  for  leagues  around  it,  as  if  to 
lodge  an  overwhelming  train,  alarmed  the  pope  to  such  a 
degree  that  the  archbishop’s  visit  was  excused.^ 

The  citizens  of  the  Italian  republics,  devoting  them¬ 
selves  to  the  accumulation  of  wealth,  ceased  to  cultivate 
the  art  of  war,  and  relied  for  their  defence  on  the  mer¬ 
cenary  bands  which  now,  under  the  name  of  free  com¬ 
panies,  overran  both  France  and  Italy.2  These  companies 
were  at  first  composed  in  great  part  of  soldiers  who,  by 
the  conclusion  of  peace  between  France  and  England, 
had  found  their  occupation  gone.a  They  admitted  into 
their  ranks  men  of  various  nations,  and  enlisted  them¬ 
selves  in  the  service  of  any  power  that  could  afford  to 
hire  them — keeping  their  contract  faithfully  so  long  as  it 
lasted,  but  holding  themselves  at  liberty  to  go  over  to  an 
opposite  party  at  the  end  of  the  term ; b  and  when  not 
thus  engaged,  they  plundered  and  ravaged  on  their  Own 
account.  Among  the  captains  of  such  mercenaries 
( condottieri )  the  most  famous  was  Sir  John  Hawkwood, 


y  These  stories  rest  on  the  authority 
of  Corio’s  ‘History  of  Milan.’  See 
Murat.  Ann.  VIII.  ii.  68  ;  De  Sade,  iii. 
172-3  ;  Sism.  iv.  276-7. 

*  G.  Vill.  x.  112  ;  Leonard  Aretin. 
in  Murat,  xix.  919  ;  Hist.  Pistoles,  in 
Mur.  xi.  489  ;  Antonin.  364-5  ;  Gre- 
gorov.  vi.  404-12  ;  see  Hallam,  M.  A. 
i.  332-4.  Leonard  of  Arezzo  (1.  c.)  adds 
that  in  his  own  youth  (towards  the  end 


of  the  century)  the  Italian  cavalry 
again  became  famous,  and  the  foreign 
mercenaries  were  no  longer  employed. 

a  W.  Nang.  cont.  128-9  >  Froissart, 
iii.  283-4.  See  Edw.  III.  a.d.  1361,  in 
Rymer,  iii.  630.  These  companies  oc¬ 
cupy  much  space  in  the  later  books  of 
M.  Villani. 

b  See  Macaulay,  *  Essay  on  Machia- 
velli,'  Works,  v.  8,  ed.  1866. 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1350. 


HAWKWOOD 


177 


an  Englishman,  who,  after  having  distinguished  himself 
in  the  French  wars,  passed  into  Italy,  and  there  served 
for  thirty  years  under  the  Visconti,  the  pope,  and  lastly 
under  the  republic  of  Florence,  which  at  his  death  com¬ 
memorated  him  by  a  colossal  equestrian  portrait,  still 
existing  in  the  cathedral.0  Hawkwood  had  the  reputation 
of  being  the  most  skilful  commander  of  his  age  ; d  and  in 
our  own  day  he  has  been  characterized  by  an  eminent  histo¬ 
rian  as  “the  first  real  general  of  modern  times ;  the  earliest 
master,  however  imperfect,  in  the  science  of  Turenne  and 
Wellington.”0  Avignon  was  repeatedly  threatened  by 
these  companies,  which  laid  waste  the  country  around  it ; 
and  the  popes  endeavoured  to  protect  themselves,  some¬ 
times  by  uttering  anathemas,1  sometimes  by  engaging  the 


c  Froissart,  vii.  211;  Antonin.  371-2, 
376,  384,  etc.  He  died  in  1393.  Annal. 
Mediol.  in  Murat,  xvi.  821.  A  ceno¬ 
taph  preserves  his  memory  in  his  native 
place,  Sible  Hedingham.  See  Nichols, 
‘  Bibl.  Topographica,’  vol.  vi.  For  an 
engraving  of  the  Florentine  picture, 
see  Tartini’s  Continuation  of  Mura- 
tori’s  *  Scriptores,’  ii.  663.  A  monu¬ 
ment  was  voted  by  the  Florentines 
in  1393,  but  it  was  not  until  1436  that 
the  painting  was  executed  by  Paul 
Uccelli.  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  ii. 
290-1. 

d  Antonin.  378,  426.  Hawkwood’s 
name  appears  under  various  disguises 
— some  of  them,  such  as  Kauchouod, 
Kaicchouvole,  etc.,  arising  from  the 
copying  of  MS.  without  any  regard  to 
sound,  while  others,  such  as  Attend, 
Agnto,  A  ugudus ,  Axutus,  A  chus  (An¬ 
tonin.  iii.  484),  are  attempts  to  ap¬ 
proach  the  pronunciation.  From  this 
last  class  (suggestive  of  acus,  a  needle) 
may  have  come  the  name  by  which 
Matthew  Villani  styles  him — della 
guglia — and  the  idea  of  his  having  in 
early  life  been  a  tailor  (M.  Vill.  ix.  37) ; 
an  idea  which  seems  inconsistent  with 
the  fact  that  “Johannes  de  Haukwode, 
armiger  de  comitatu  de  Essex,”  was 

VOL.  VII. 


one  of  those  who  were  summoned  to 
join  Edward  III.  in  France,  a.d.  1345 
(Rymer,  iii.  52).  Peter  Villani  speaks 
of  him  as  “  Inglese,  gran  maestro  di 
guerra,  di  natura  a  loro  [ i.e .  the  En¬ 
glish]  modo  volpigna  ed  astuta,”  and 
tells  us  that  his  name  means  Falcone 
in  Bosco,  and  was  given  to  him  because 
his  mother  caused  herself  to  be  carried 
into  a  wood  that  she  might  give  birth 
to  him  (xi.  79).  Hawkwood  married 
an  illegitimate  daughter  of  Bernabo 
Visconti  (Annal.  Mediol.  763).  He  was 
employed  by  the  English  government 
in  Italian  negotiations,  and  in  1388  was 
made  vicar-general  of  Richard  II.  for 
Provence  and  Forcalquier.  (Rymer, 
vii.  307,  458,  569.)  As  a  specimen  of 
his  discipline  it  is  related  that,  see¬ 
ing  two  of  his  band  fighting  for  a  beau¬ 
tiful  maiden  who  had  been  found  in  a 
nunnery  on  the  taking  of  Faenza,  and 
being  unwilling  to  lose  either  of  them, 
he  solved  the  difficulty  by  plunging  his 
sword  into  her  breast,  “  E  in  questo 
modo  la  Vergine  Maria  conserve  la 
verginita  d’  essa  fanciulla,  e  fu  mar- 
tire.”  Nero  Donati  in  Murat,  xv.  221. 
e  Hallam,  M.  A.  i.  335. 
f  M.  Vill.  vii.  87  ;  x.  24  ;  W.  Nang. 
Cont.  129  ;  Froissart,  iv.  141.  See  as 

12 


>78 


STATE  OF  ROME. 


Book  VIII. 


aid  of  princes  and  nobles, g  but  more  successfully  by  the 
payment  of  large  sums  of  money, h  by  which  the  adven¬ 
turers  were  persuaded  to  transfer  themselves  to  some 
other  quarter.  Thus  Innocent  in  1362  bought  off  the 
“  White  company/’  which  thereupon  crossed  the  Alps,  at 
the  invitation  of  the  marquis  of  Montferrat,  and  engaged 
in  the  wars  of  Italy/  With  a  view  to  defence  against  such 
assailants,  Innocent  fortified  his  palace  and  the  city  of 
Avignon — enclosing  within  the  walls  an  extent  of  ground 
which  left  room  for  the  future  increase  of  the  place.k 

Rome  had  been  in  a  state  of  confusion  since  the  time 
of  Rienzi’s  withdrawal,  in  January  1348/  With  a  view 
to  recovering  his  power  over  the  city,  and  over  the  terri¬ 
tory  of  the  church,  Innocent  in  1353  sent  into  Italy  an 
army  under  Giles  Albornoz,  cardinal  of  St.  Clement,  a 
Spaniard,  who  had  been  a  knight  in  his  youth,  and  after¬ 
wards  archbishop  of  Toledo — a  man  eminent  both  for 
military  and  for  political  talents.111  With  this  legate  was 
joined  Rienzi,  who  had  been  released  from  prison,11  and 
invested  with  the  dignity  of  senator,  in  the  hope  that  he 
might  be  able  to  resume  his  influence  over  the  Romans, 
and  that  he  would  use  it  in  the  interest  of  the  papacy.0 


to  the  bull  of  Urban  V.,  in  13 66  (Bui. 
iv.  414),  Gregorov.  vi.  411-12.  When 
the  count  of  Narbonne  and  others  had 
fallen  captives  to  a  company,  Urban 
forbade  them  to  pay  the  stipulated 
ransom,  and  declared  them  absolved 
from  their  promise.  Froiss.  iv.  344  ; 
Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  350,  351,  354. 

*  Innoc.  VI.  Epp.  8,  9,  12-15,  etc. 
(Mart.  Thes.  ii.) 

h  Froiss.  iii.  284,  286  ;  iv.  123-45. 
One  of  the  companies  threatened  Stras- 
burg,  but  was  driven  off  by  the  em¬ 
peror  Charles.  Ib.  164 ;  Trithem. 
Chron.  Hirsaug.  A.D.  1362. 

1  Petrarc.  Ep.  Famil.  xxiii.  1  ;  M. 
Vill.  x.  43  ;  Froiss.  iv.  143  ;  Hist.  Lan- 
gued.  iv.  3x0-12  ;  Martin,  v.  236. 


k  Epp.  29,  226-7  :  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven. 
i.  342  ;  Eulog.  Hist.  iii.  229,  where  it 
is  added,  “  Et  nisi  morbo  hydropisi  fati- 
garetur,  non  ibi  moraretur  ;  sed  quia 
debilior,  factusest  audacior.” 

1  M.  Vill.  iii.  57-8,  78,91.  See  Gre¬ 
gorov.  vi.  332,  seqq. 

m  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  323,  336, 
358,  etc.;  Hist.  Rom.  Fragm.,  Murat. 
Ant.  Ital.  iii.  493 ;  Rayn.  1353.  2.  See 
Ciacon.  ii.  500 ;  Gregorov.  vi.  331. 

n  Re  dates  his  release  on  July  1, 
I353- 

0  Fragm.  5x3,  519.  There  are  two 
letters  from  Rienzi  to  the  Roman  peo¬ 
ple,  written  from  Avignon,  in  Baluz. 
Miscell.  iii.  136-7. 


Chap.  IV.  a. d.  1353-4.  RIENZI  AS  SENATOR.  1 79 

But  although  the  citizens,  weary  of  anarchy,  appear  to 
have  begged  that  their  former  tribune  might 
be  restored  to  them,  and  received  him  with  I'^4' 

enthusiasm,13  he  speedily  forfeited  their  favour  by  his 
misconduct.  The  faults  which  had  led  to  his  earlier  fall 
were  repeated  in  a  worse  degree  than  before.  The  people 
were  oppressed  by  heavy  taxes  levied  on  the  necessaries 
of  life.  His  power  was  exercised  with  caprice  and 
cruelty ;  and  especial  distrust  was  excited  by  the  death 
of  one  Pandulf,  whose  only  crime  was  the  possession  of 
influence, q  and  by  that  of  Walter  de  Montreal,  a  famous 
Provei^al  condottiere,  who,  from  having  been  formerly  a 
knight  of  St.  John,  was  commonly  styled  Brother  Moreale. 
This  man  had  offended  against  the  public  peace  by  acts 
which  pope  Innocent  describes  as  worse  than  the  outrages 
of  Holofernes  or  of  Totila;r  but  his  brothers  had  laid 
Rienzi  under  great  obligations  by  advancing  sums  of 
money  which  were  necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of  his 
mission ;  and  when  the  senator,  in  disregard  of  this, 
treacherously  decoyed  Moreale  into  his  power,  tortured 
him,  and  put  him  to  death,  the  victim’s  faults  were  for¬ 
gotten  in  indignation  at  the  manner  of  his  end.3  Mean¬ 
while  Rienzi’s  personal  habits  became  grossly  sensual ; 
he  fed  immoderately  on  sweetmeats,  drank  strong  mixed 
wines  at  all  hours,1  and  showed  the  effect  of  these  indul¬ 
gences  in  the  swelling  of  his  body,  which  a  contemporary 
likens  to  that  of  a  fatted  ox  or  of  an  abbot  of  unreason.11 


p  M.  Vill.  iv.  23  ;  Fragm.  513,  522. 

Fragm.  c.  xxii. 
r  Rayn.  1354.  4. 

3  As  to  Fra  Moreale,  see  Fragm. 
511-13,  529,  531-5 ;  M.  Vill.  i.  93  ;  iii. 
89,  108  ;  iv.  23,  26  ;  Cron.  d’Orvieto, 
in  Murat,  xv.  675-7 ;  Hist.  Pistol,  ib. 
xii.  513 ;  Gregorov.  vi.  349,  356-9 ; 
Reumont,  ii.  909.  1  Fragm.  523. 

u  ‘  ‘  Grasso  era  horribilmente  .... 
Tanto  era  la  soa  grossezza,  che  parea 


uno  smesurato  bufalo,  o  vero  vacca  a 
maciello.”  (Ib.  543.)  “  Havea  una 

ventresca  tonna,  trionfale,  a  modo  de 
uno  abbate  Asiano  ” — or,  according  to 
another  reading  (Ib.  523),  which 
seems  preferable,  asinino, — meaning  a 
mock  abbot  in  a  burlesque  festival. 
Compare  the  scene  between  Roland 
Graeme  and  Abbot  Howleglass,  ‘  Wa- 
verley  Novels,’  xx.  pp.  205,  213,  ed. 
1829, 


i8o 


DEATH  OF  RIENZI. 


Book  VIII. 


His  reputation  was  lowered  by  failure  in  an  attempt  to 
take  the  fortress  of  Palestrina  from  the  Colonnas.x  Rome 
became  impatient  of  his  yoke,  and  his  oratory  had  lost 
its  power  over  the  multitude.  A  rising  took  place, y  there 
g  were  cries  for  his  death,  and  Rienzi  was  ar¬ 
rested  while  attempting  to  escape  in  disguise. 
For  an  hour  he  was  exposed  to  the  derision  of  the  mob, 
who  then  fell  upon  him,  cut  him  to  pieces,  and  treated 
his  remains  with  indignities  which  showed  the  violence  of 
a.  d.  1354-  their  exasperation  against  him.2  Although, 
x367-  however,  the  attempt  to  turn  Rienzi  to  ac¬ 
count  had  utterly  failed,  the  legate  Albornoz,  a  man  of 
a  very  different  stamp,  conducted  his  affairs  with  such 
skill  that  he  succeeded  in  recovering  Bologna  and  the  Ro¬ 
magna,11  with  almost  all  the  other  ecclesiastical  territories. 

In  1354  the  emperor  Charles,  with  the  pope’s  sanction, 
proceeded  into  Italy  for  his  coronation.  He  found  that 
the  formidable  archbishop  of  Milan,  John  Visconti,  had 
died  in  consequence  of  a  surgical  operation, b 
e .  4,  01  5.  had  been  succeeded  in  his  secular  power 
by  his  three  nephews,  of  whom  the  eldest,  Matthew,  was 
soon  after  poisoned  by  his  brothers  Bernabb  and  Galeazzo, 
because  his  excessive  dissoluteness  endangered  the  in¬ 
terests  of  the  family.0  Charles  received  the  iron  crown 
at  Milan  on  the  Epiphany,  1355  ;d  and,  leaving  Bernabb 
Visconti  as  his  vicar  (an  appointment  which  greatly 
offended  the  pope),e  he  continued  his  progress  towards 
Rome.  The  smallness  of  the  force  by  which  he  was 
accompanied — a  mere  escort  of  three  hundred  horsemen f 


x  Fragm.  527.  y  M.  Vill.  iv.  26. 
2  Fragm.  543  ;  M.  Vill.  1.  c.;  Gibbon, 

vi.  390  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  362-5. 

a  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  357;  M.  Vill. 

vii.  56,  100 ;  Cron.  d’Orvieto,  681-6, 
692  ;  Gibbon,  vi.  389 ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
383-5,  etc. 

b  M.  Vill.  iv.  25 ;  Antonin.  364 ; 
Murat.  Ann.  VIII.  ii.  87. 


c  M.  Vill.  iv.  28 ;  v.  81. 
d  Rayn.  1355.  1 ;  Murat.  Ann.  VIII. 
ii.  92.  Matthew  Villani  places  the 
coronation  at  Monza,  iv.  39. 
e  N.  Donati,  195. 

f  M.  Vill.  iv.  39  (where  there  are  the 
readings  trecento  and  ottocento ) ;  Sism. 
iv.  382  ;  Palacky,  II.  ii.  319. 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1354-5-  CHARLES  IV.  IN  ITALY. 


l8l 


— disarmed  the  suspicion  of  the  Italians, s  and,  because 
of  his  very  weakness,  Charles  was  everywhere  received 
with  an  extraordinary  show  of  respect ;  even  the  rigid 
Guelf  republicans  of  Florence  did  homage,  and  bound 
themselves  to  the  payment  of  tribute.11  At  Pisa  he  was 
strengthened  by  the  arrival  of  those  Germans  whose  duty 
required  them  to  attend  the  emperor  on  such  expeditions, 
so  that  he  found  himself  at  the  head  of  a  considerable 
force,  composed  of  the  flower  of  the  German  nobility.1 
A  condition  by  which  he  had  pledged  himself  not  to 
enter  Rome  before  the  day  of  the  coronation k  had  been 
in  so  far  relaxed  by  the  pope  that,  on  arriving  on  Thurs¬ 
day  in  the  holy  week,  he  was  allowed  to  visit  the  churches 
and  the  cardinals  as  a  pilgrim.1  But  his  solemn  entry 
was  deferred  until  Easter-day,  when  he  and  his  empress 
were  crowned  in  St.  Peter’s  by  the  cardinal- 
bishop  of  Ostia  ;m  and  on  the  same  day,  "  pu  ^ 
agreeably  to  his  engagement,  he  again  left  the  city.n 
Without  having  made  an  attempt  to  recover  any  rights 
of  the  empire  which  had  been  invaded,  or  to  establish 
any  authority  over  Rome,  Charles  returned  northward  so 
hastily,  and  with  so  little  display,  that  his  journey  almost 
resembled  a  flight;0  and  Petrarch, p  who  had  urged  him 


k  M.  Vill.  v.  2. 

h  lb.  iv.  41,  49,  53-4,  67,  73,  75-6  ; 
Antonin.  363  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  208-9. 
See  M.  Villani,  c.  63. 

1  “4000  cavalieri  della  piu  bella  e 
ricca  baronia  del  mondo.”  M.  Vill. 
iv.  56.  k  See  p.  146. 

1  M.  Vill.  iv.  92 ;  Albert.  Argent,  in 
Urstis.  ii.  163 ;  Gregorov.  vi.  377-81. 

ra  It  had  been  usual  that  on  such 
occasions  the  bishop  of  Ostia  should 
attend  at  his  own  expense,  and  that 
two  others  should  attend  at  the  expense 
of  the  church.  But  the  pope  and  car¬ 
dinals  found  it  inconvenient  at  this 
time  to  pay  the  additional  bishops,  and 
Charles  was  willing  to  do  without 


them.  (M.  Vill.  iv.  71.)  Albornoz 
had  been  joined  in  the  commission,  but 
was  too  busy  elsewhere.  (Rayn.  1355. 
2,  5,  11.)  M.  Villani  is  mistaken  in 
saying  that  Charles  was  crowned  by 
the  prefect.  Rayn.  1359.  3 ;  Gregorov. 
vi.  377- 

n  M.  Vill.  v.  2  ;  Rayn.  1355.  3,  seqq.; 
B&luz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  328,  346 ;  Gre¬ 
gorov.  vi.  377;  Palacky,  II.  ii.  323. 
Petrarch  is  indignant  at  this  restriction. 
Ep.  xxiii.  2  (t.  iii.  193,  ed.  Fracass.); 
De  Vita  Solitaria,  1.  II.  sect.  iv.  3  (t. 
i.  305,  ed.  Basil.). 

0  See  as  to  troubles  at  Pisa,  Palacky, 
II.  ii.  325-7. 

P  E.g .,  Epp.  x.  1. 


182 


THE  GOLDEN  BULL. 


Book  VIII. 


to  revive  the  glories  of  Rome/  and  had  been  summoned 
to  meet  him  at  Mantua  on  his  way  to  the  coronation, 
expressed  strongly  the  bitter  disappointment  of  the  hopes 
which  he  had  rested  on  the  emperor. r  In  July  1355 
Charles  arrived  again  in  Germany,  enriched  by  the  money 
which  he  had  levied  on  the  Italian  cities,  but  without 
having  increased  his  reputation.8 

Charles  had  announced  from  Piacenza  that,  if  he  should 
be  permitted  to  return  to  Germany,  he  intended  to  do 
some  good  thing  for  the  benefit  of  the  kingdom  ;4  and, 
in  fulfilment  of  this  promise,  he  summoned  a  diet  to  meet 
in  January  1356  at  Nuremberg,  where  the  document 
known  as  his  Golden  Bull  was  enacted  as  a  fundamental 
law  of  the  empire.11  By  this  bull  many  circumstances  of 
the  election  to  the  crown  were  settled  x — the  forms  to  be 
observed,  the  duties  of  the  chief  officers,  the  time  within 
which  an  election  must  take  place  after  a  vacancy,  the 
election  at  Frankfort,  and  the  coronation  at  Aix-la- 
Chapelle.  By  a  provision  which  doubtless  originated  in 
Charles’s  own  rare  knowledge  of  languages/  it  was  ordered 
that,  whereas  the  empire  consisted  of  various  nations,  the 
sons  of  the  lay  electors  should,  from  their  seventh  to  their 
fourteenth  year,  be  instructed  in  Italian  and  Slavonic.2 
But  the  bull  was  chiefly  important  as  determining  to 
whom  the  right  of  sharing  in  the  election  should  belong. 


«  See  his  letters  in  Goldast,  ii.  1350  ; 
Gibbon,  vi.  391.  Petrarch  had  been 
invited  by  Charles  to  accompany  him 
to  Rome,  but  had  found  it  necessary  to 
refuse.  Epp.  xii.  522. 

r  In  Ep.  xix.  12  he  reproves  Charles 
for  having  a  soul  unequal  to  his  dignity. 
“  Tu  imperii  dominus  Romani  nihil 
nisi  Bohemiam  suspiras,”  etc.  Cf.  xix. 
3  ;  xx.  1-2  ;  xxiii.  2  ;  xxxiii.  15,  21,  etc. 

8  “  Cum  magna  pecunia,  sed  majori 
infamia,”  says  a  biographer  of  Clement 
VI.  in  Baluz.  i.  322.  Theodoric  of 
Niem  styles  Charles  “  hypocrita  insig- 


nis,  et  avaritia  alter  Marcus  Crassus.” 
(Nem.  Un.  vi.  33,  p.  362.)  See  N. 
Donati,  in  Murat,  xv.  206,  as  to  his 
extracting  money  from  the  Sienese. 

1  Schmidt,  iii.  633. 
u  It  was  afterwards  ratified  at  Mentz. 
Palacky,  II.  ii.  342. 

x  See  Olenslager,  *  Neue  Erlaute- 
rung  der  Goldenen  Bulle  Karls  IV.,’ 
Frankf.  1766.  The  bull  is  also  printed 
in  the  ‘Fascic.  Rer.  Exp.  et.  Fug.’  i. 
108,  seqq. 

y  See  above,  p.  145. 

1  C.  30- 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1355-62. 


URBAN  V. 


183 


For  as  to  this  there  had  been  much  difficulty  and  un¬ 
certainty,  from  the  circumstance  that  the  rule  of  inherit¬ 
ance  by  primogeniture  had  not  been  established  in  the 
families  of  the  lay  electors,  and  that  consequently  their 
territories  were  liable  to  be  broken  up  among  several 
heirs,  each  of  whom  might  claim  the  electoral  suffrage. 
By  the  “golden  bull”  it  was  settled  that  in  every  case  the 
vote  should  be  attached  to  a  certain  portion  of  territory, 
which  was  to  be  regarded  as  the  electoral  land,  and  that 
this  portion  should  descend  according  to  the  order  of 
primogeniture.8.  The  claim  of  the  pope  to  interfere  with 
the  election  was  not  mentioned  at  all ;  and  it  was  assumed 
that  in  Germany,  at  least,  the  king  or  emperor  had  full 
power  from  the  time  of  his  election,  so  as  to  need  no 
confirmation  in  his  office.  The  “  priests’  emperor  ”  had 
secured  the  crown  against  the  pretensions  of  the  papacy ; 
and  Innocent  was  greatly  annoyed  at  the  result.b 

After  a  pontificate  of  nearly  ten  years,  Innocent  died 
on  the  12th  of  September  1362.  Twenty  cardinals 
assembled  for  the  choice  of  a  successor ;  but  they  were 
unable  to  agree  as  to  the  promotion  of  one 
of  their  own  body,  and  their  choice  fell  on 
William  de  Grimoard,  a  native  of  the  diocese  of  Mende, 
and  abbot  of  the  Benedictine  monastery  of  St.  Victor  at 
Marseilles.0  The  new  pope,  Urban  V.,  who  was  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  been  elected  under  a  special  influence 
of  the  Holy  Ghost, d  had  attained  the  age  of  sixty,  was 
respected  alike  for  his  sanctity  and  for  his  learning,  and 
had  exerted  himself  greatly  in  the  service  of  the  church. e 


Oct.  18,  1-362. 


a  Cc.  20-5.  See  Olensl.  Erlauterun- 
gen,  173,  seqq..;  Hallam,  M.  A.  i.  445-8. 

b  Schmidt,  iii.  633,  691  ;  Palacky,  II- 
ii-  339-47  ;  Milm.  v.  378. 

c  Baluz.  V.  P.  Aven.  i.  363  ;  M.  Vill. 
xi.  26. 

d  Baluz.  1.  c.  See  Petrarc.  902-3. 
The  Meaux  chronicler  says  that  he 


was  chosen  by  a  compromise  between 
the  parties  of  the  last  two  popes,  and 
that  on  this  was  made  the  line  — 

“  Hunc  patrem  patrum  fecit  discordia  fra- 
trum.”  iii.  153. 

e  Baluz.  i.  413  ;  Froissart,  iv.  149. 
Cardinal  Talleyrand  is  reported  to  have 
said,  “  Modo  habemus  papain.  Alios 


184 


URBAN  V. 


Book  VIIi. 


Like  his  predecessor,  he  showed  himself  an  enemy  to 
the  corruptions  of  the  court,  to  simony,  pluralities,  and 
non-residence.  He  took  away  from  the  houses  of  the 
cardinals  the  privilege  of  sanctuary,  which  had  been  much 
abused/  As  pope  he  retained  the  monastic  dress  and 
the  simplicity  of  monastic  habits  ;s  but,  while  thus  spar¬ 
ing  of  expense  on  himself,  he  laid  out  vast  sums  for  the 
benefit  of  the  church,  as  on  the  restoration  of  the  Roman 
churches  and  palaces/  the  erection  and  endowment  of 
a  monastery  and  a  college  at  Montpellier,1  and  the 
encouragement  of  learning  by  maintaining  a  thousand 
students  in  various  universities,  and  by  liberally  supplying 
them  with  books/  He  chose  his  cardinals  for  their 
merit  alone,  whereas  the  late  popes  had  limited  their 
choice  to  such  persons  as  were  devoted  to  the  French 
interest.1  Nor  did  he  fall  into  the  usual  fault  of  en¬ 
riching  his  own  kindred,  whether  laymen  or  clergy,  at  the 
expense  of  the  church ;  for  only  two  of  his  near  relatives 
were  advanced  to  the  prelacy,  and  of  these  it  is  said  that 
both  were  deserving,  and  that  one  was  promoted  at  the 
special  request  of  the  cardinals.111 

The  south  of  France  continued  for  a  time  to  be  infested 
by  the  free  companies ;  but  at  length  they  were  put  down 
under  this  pontificate.11  In  Italy,  however,  the  evil  en- 


ex  debito  honoravimus,  at  istum  ne- 
cesse  est  nobis  timere  et  revereri,  quia 
potens  est  opere  et  sermone.”  Baluz. 

i.  423- 

f  Petrarc.  Senil.  p.  898-9  ;  Baluz.  i. 
394- 

£  lb.  414 ;  Hist.  Langued.  iv.  423. 
Yet  it  was  this  pope  who  is  commonly 
said  to  have  added  a  third  crown  to 
the  tiara— probably  with  a  symbolical 
meaning.  Schrockh,  xxxi.  229.  See 
vol.  vi.  p.  303. 

h  Baluz.  i.  392  4,  396.  The  Lateran 
church  had  been  again  burnt  in  1363. 
(M.  Vill.  x.  69.)  It  is  said  that  when 
the  abbot  of  St.  Paul’s  without  the 


walls  offered  a  large  sum  in  order  to 
be  made  a  cardinal,  Urban  took  the 
money,  and  spent  it  on  the  repairing  of 
St.  Paul’s,  leaving  the  abbot  as  before. 
Ib.  415.  1  Baluz.  i.  374,  395,  4x5. 

k  Ib.  395,  416. 

1  Chron.  Meld.  iii.  156. 
m  Baluz.  i.  397,  417. 
n  Ib.  369.  It  is  said  that,  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  pope’s  curse,  those 
who  were  slain  in  an  engagement  lay 
“  supino  corpore,  et  facie  versus  terram, 
in  signum  maledictionis  ”  ;  while  the 
soldiers  who  had  fallen  on  the  other 
side  appeared  “  facie  erecta  ad  ccelum 
et  corpore  ad  verso.”  Ib.  421. 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1362.  BERNABO  VISCONTI. 


I35 


dured  longer,0  and  the  country  suffered  greatly  from  the 
power,  the  tyranny,  and  the  ambition  of  Bernabb  Visconti, 
who  was  now  the  head  of  his  family.  Innocent  had 
proclaimed  in  1356  a  crusade  against  the  Visconti  for 
detaining  certain  cities  which  belonged  to  the  church  ; 
but  the  design  was  marred  by  the  misconduct  of  the 
preachers,  who  endeavoured  to  make  a  profit  for  them¬ 
selves  out  of  the  indulgences  which  they  were  authorized 
to  offer,  and  the  payments  for  exemption  from  service. p 

Bernabo  showed  himself  especially  hostile  to  the  clergy. 
For  instance,  it  is  said  that  he  seized  a  priest  who  had 
been  sent  to  preach  the  crusade,  put  him  into  an  iron 
cage,  and  roasted  him  to  death  on  a  gridiron ;  and  that 
he  caused  some  Franciscans  to  be  shod  with  iron,  like 
horses,  the  nails  being  driven  into  their  feet.r  He  declared 
himself  to  be  both  pope  and  emperor  within  his  own 
dominions  ; 8  he  tore  up  papal  letters,  and  imprisoned 
the  bearers  of  them;  Urban  himself,  when  sent  to  him  as 
legate  by  pope  Innocent,  had  been  forced  to  swallow  the 
bull  which  he  carried,  with  the  leaden  seal  and  the  string 
by  which  it  was  attached  to  the  parchment ; 4  and  he 
compelled  a  priest  of  Parma  to  utter  an  anathema  against 
Innocent  and  the  cardinals.11  The  pope  de- 

.  #  A.D,  1^02. 

nounced  him  excommunicate,  authorized  his 


0  Gregorov.  vi.  404-11.  Theodoric 
of  Niem  probably  had  these  companies 
in  view  when,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
following  century,  he  recommended  a 
crusade  as  a  means  of  ridding  Italy  and 
the  neighbouring  countries  of  “  many 
bad  men  who  are  in  them.  ”  De  N ecess- 
Reform,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  292. 

P  See  Rymer,  iii.  509,  623.  There 
is  much  about  Bernabb  in  Innocent’s 
letters.  Martene,  Thes.  ii. 

1  M.  Vill.  vi.  28. 

1  Herm.  Corner,  1148.  See  Chron. 
Reg.  in  Murat,  xviii.  78  ;  Annal.  Me- 
diol.  ib.  xxii.  794 ;  Rayn.  1360.  9 ; 
1362.  12 ;  1373.  10,  seqq. ;  Froissart, 


xiii.  339 ;  Gregorov.  vi.  400.  The 
Milanese  annalist,  however,  mentions 
some  redeeming  qualities ;  and  another 
writer  says,  “Estenim  Dominus  Ber- 
nabos  veridicus,  amans  justitiam,  con- 
stans,  impatiens  [patiens?],  et  nimium 
virtuosus.”  Pet.  Azarius,  in  Murat, 
xvi.  385. 

8  Froiss.  1.  c. 

4  J.  Trithem.  Chron.  Spanh.  a.d. 
1369 ;  Chron.  Rimin.  in  Murat,  xv. 
91 1  ;  Annal.  Mediol.  ib.  xvi.  801.  St. 
Catharine  of  Siena  pathetically  entreats 
Bernabb  to  leave  his  evil  ways.  i.  113. 

u  Rayn.  1360.  9  ;  1362.  13. 


iS6 


URBAN  V.  IS  URGED 


Book  VIII. 


wife  to  separate  from  him  as  a  heretic  and  unbeliever,31 
formed  an  alliance  against  him  with  the  emperor  and 
with  some  Italian  states,  and  put  off,  in  favour  of  a 
crusade  against  Bernabo,  one  in  which  king  John  of 
France  and  many  of  his  nobles  had  enlisted  themselves 
for  the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land.y  But  Bernabo  was 
able  to  hold  his  ground,  and  the  pope  was  glad  at  length 
to  conclude  a  peace  with  him,  by  which  Bologna  was 
recovered  for  the  papacy,  while  Urban  undertook  to 
mediate  for  him  with  the  emperor.2 

Urban  before  his  election  had  been  strongly  in  favour 
of  restoring  the  papal  residence  to  Rome,  and  he  was 
now  entreated  to  act  on  the  desire  which  he  had  ex- 
pressed.a  The  emperor  Charles  urged  him  ; b  the  Romans 
invited  him  to  take  up  his  abode  among  them  ;  Peter,  a 
prince  of  Aragon,  who  had  become  a  Franciscan,  brought 
the  authority  of  visions  in  support  of  the  return;0  and 
Petrarch  renewed  the  suit  which  he  had  so  often  made 
to  preceding  popes.d  The  poet  represents  the  desolate 
state  of  Rome,  where  the  holiest  and  most  venerable 
buildings  lay  in  heartrending  decay,  while  the  pope  lived 
in  ease  and  splendour  on  the  banks  of  the  Rhone.®  He 
dwells  on  the  beauty  of  Italy,  which  wanted  nothing  but 
peace,  while  he  sneers  at  Avignon  as  the  “  native  cbuntry 
of  the  winds.”*  He  even  argues  from  Urban’s  name  the 


x  M.  Vill.  xi.  41  ;  Rayn.  1363.  2. 
y  Baluz.  i.  401 ;  Rayn.  1362.  1.  The 
king  of  Cyprus  visited  Avignon  in 
1363,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  up  a 
crusade.  (Froissart,  iv.  155,  seqq.) 
He  was  able  to  collect  only  a  small 
force,  with  which  he  surprised  Alexan¬ 
dria,  in  October  1375,  but  could  not 
hold  it  (Sism.  R.  I.  v.  119).  Chaucer 
says  of  his  knight : — 

“  At  Alisandre  he  was  whan  it  was  wonne.” 

z  P.  Azar.  in  Murat,  xvi.  401  ;  Baluz. 
i.  402  ;  Rayn.  1364.  4.  The  pope  was 
much  blamed  for  this.  Cron.  Bologn. 


in  Murat,  xviii.  84  ;  P.  Villani,  in  con¬ 
tinuation  of  M.  Vill.  xi.  64. 

a  Petrarc.  902 ;  Schrdckh,  xxx. 
221-2. 

b  Palacky,  II.  ii.  364. 
c  Wadding,  A.D.  1366,  11. 
d  Send.  pp.  897  9x4. 
e  “  Lapideis  quoque  pectoribus  sus- 
piria  extorquens  ”  (p.  931). 

f  Pp.  908-9,  913.  (See  De  Sade,  i. 
25.)  The  violence  of  the  wind  at 
Avignon  must  be  felt  in  order  to  be 
understood. 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1362-5.  TO  RETURN  TO  ROME. 


187 


duty  of  returning  to  the  city.g  He  endeavours  to  gain 
over  the  cardinals,  whom  he  supposes  reluctant  to  tear 
themselves  away  from  the  wines  of  Burgundy,  by  assuring 
them  that  Italy  too  has  its  delicious  wines,  and  that  in  any 
case  they  will  be  able  to  import  the  other  vintages.11  In 
a  loftier  strain  Petrarch  admonishes  Urban  by  a  compari¬ 
son  between  the  ancient  capital  of  Christendom  and  the 
French  city  which  had  become  infamous  for  its  vices  from 
the  time  when  the  popes  made  it  their  residence ;  and, 
after  setting  forth  the  terrors  of  the  judgment-day  and  of 
the  account  to  be  then  exacted,  he  asks  the  pope  whether 
he  would  rather  choose  to  rise  with  the  notorious  sinners 
of  Avignon,  or  with  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  St.  Stephen 
and  St.  Laurence,  and  the  thousands  of  other  saints  whose 
relics  or  whose  memories  were  connected  with  Rome.1 

On  the  other  hand,  Nicolas  Oreme,  an  ecclesiastic 
attached  to  the  French  court, k  argued  in  behalf  of  Avignon 
and  of  France,  insisting  especially  on  the  superiority  of 
that  country  in  literary  fame.1  But  Petrarch  indignantly 
rejoined  that  many  of  the  men  to  whom  France  owed  its 
renown  in  letters  were  of  Italian  birth,  as  Peter  Lombard, 
Thomas  of  Aquino,  Bonaventura,  and  Giles  Colonna;  m 
and,  as  he  had  been  blamed  for  calling  Gaul  a  place  of 


s  "  Quomodo  enim,  quaeso,  et  Ur- 
banus  diceris,  et  nominis  huj  us  originem 
Urbani  fugis?”  (p.  902).  Elsewhere 
he  says,  “Fama  est  esse  palatii  tui 
partem  quae  Roma  dicitur,  quam  in- 
gressus  sponsae  tuae  te  redidisse,  totum- 
que  prorsus  implesse  Romani  papae 
officium  videare.  Noli  cum  Domino 
tuo  ludere  ”  (p.  9x3). 

h  Pp.  909,  910.  He  refers  to  this  at 
pp.  934-6,  938,  943,  948,  1183-5,  1173. 
The  wine  which  he  represents  as  the 
special  favourite  of  the  cardinals  is  the 
“  Besuense” — that  of  Beze,  near  Dijon, 
or  more  generally  the  wine  of  Beaune  ; 
which,  says  Dr.  Henderson,  “  must 
now  be  placed  in  the  second  rank.” 


(Hist,  of  Wines,  162.)  It  proved,  after 
all,  that  when  the  court  returned  to 
Rome,  the  Italian  wine  was  not  liked, 
and  Urban  had  to  order  supplies  of 
various  kinds  from  France.  Gregorov. 
vi.  416.  1  P.  914. 

k  He  afterwards  became  bishop  of 
Lisieux.  Some  of  his  writings  are  in 
the  Lyons  Biblioth.  Patrum. 

1  Bal.  iv.  396-412.  Cf.  “Galli  cujus- 
dam  anonymi  in  F.  Petrarcham  Invec- 
tiva,”  in  Petrarch’s  works,  1169,  seqq. 

m  “  Contra  Galli  Calumnias,”  ib. 
1192.  Elsewhere  he  says,  “Demoribus 
vulgaribus  fateor  Gallos  et  facetos 
homines,  et  gestorum  et  verborum 
levium,  qui  libenter  ludant,  laete  ca 


i88 


URBAN  IN  ITALY. 


Book  VIII. 


exile,  he  justified  the  phrase  by  referring  to  the  banish¬ 
ment  of  Herod  and  of  Pilate.n 

In  May  1365  the  emperor  Charles  visited  Avignon, 
professedly  in  order  to  concert  measures  for  the  crusade  ; 
but  the  visit  resulted  in  an  agreement  that  both  the  pope 
and  the  emperor  should  go  to  Rome  in  the  next  year  but 
one.0  The  cardinals  were  opposed  to  the  removal  of  the 
court ;  but  Urban,  who  had  never  been  a  member  of  the 
college,  set  light  by  their  opposition,15  and  is  said  to  have 
made  two  new  cardinals  by  way  of  showing  his  power 
April  30,  over  them.  On  this  they  took  alarm,  and 
j367-  while  some  of  them  reluctantly  accompanied 
him,  breaking  out  into  lamentations  and  reproaches  as 
they  put  to  sea,  others  made  the  journey  by  land, 
although  five  stubbornly  remained  at  Avignon.Q 

On  landing  at  Corneto  he  was  met  by  the  legate 
Albornoz,  to  whose  prudence  and  warlike 
4'  skill  the  papacy  had  been  indebted  for  the 
recovery  of  much  of  its  temporal  power  ;r  but  this  eminent 
2  man  died  at  Viterbo  during  Urban’s  stay 
-  lW  24-  t]iere>  The  insolence  of  a  cardinal’s  servant, 
who  washed  a  favourite  dog  in  a  public  fountain,  excited 
the  populace  of  Viterbo  to  a  tumult,  in  which  cries  of 
“  Death  to  the  church !”  were  raised,  and  it  was  suspected 
that  the  outbreak  was  contrived  by  the  cardinals  in  the 
hope  of  disgusting  the  pope  with  Italy.s 


nant,  crebro  bibant,  avide  conviventur; 
vera  autem  gravitas  ac  realis  moralitas 
apud  Italos  semper  fuit  ”  (p.  907). 

n  lb.  1190-1. 

0  Cron.  Bologn.  in  Mur.  xviii.  477 ; 
W.  Nang.  cont.  137;  Baluz.  i.  370,  984. 

P  Milm.  v.  368.  The  Bolognese 
chronicle  says  that  he  threatened  to 
depose  them,  and  to  make  Italian  car¬ 
dinals  in  their  stead  (Murat,  xviii.  481). 
Another  saying  ascribed  to  him  is, 
“  Et  siquidem  me  sine  cardinalibus 
abire  permittatis,  scitote  quoniam  in 


sinu  meo  mecum  gero  cardinales  suffi- 
cientes.”  Chron.  de  Melsa,  iii.  156. 

See  Pctrarc.  pp.  934-7  ;  Baluz.  i. 
406,  41 1.  In  Baluze,  ii.  768,  seqq., 
there  is  an  account  of  Urban’s  jour¬ 
neys  and  residence  in  Italy  by  an  at¬ 
tendant,  Garosius  de  Ulmcisca  Vetere. 

r  See  Cron.  Orviet.  in  Murat,  xv. 
692 ;  Baluz.  i.  377-8,  404-5  ;  Gregorov. 
vi.  421-2  ;  Reumont,  ii.  949. 

8  Baluz.  i.  410;  W.  Nang.  cont.  139  . 
Cron.  Bologn.  483  ;  Cron.  d’Orvieto, 
693  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  423. 


Chai\  IV.  A. d.  1365-8.  URBAN  AT  ROME. 


189 


At  Rome,  however,  he  was  welcomed  with  enthu¬ 
siasm  ; and  within  a  year  from  the  time  0ct  ^ 
of  his  arrival  he  received  the  homage,  not 
only  of  the  queen  of  Naples  and  of  the  MaicIl>  1 368- 
king  of  Cyprus,11  but  of  the  emperors  both  of  the  west 
and  of  the  east.  John  Palseologus,  whose  Oct.,  Dec., 
object  was  to  obtain  the  aid  of  the  western  *36S. 
Christians  against  the  Turks,  acknowledged  in  all  points 
the  faith  of  the  Roman  church  and  the  claims  of  the 
papacy.x  Charles  behaved  towards  the  pope  with  the 
deepest  show  of  reverence  :  he  led  his  horse  from  the 
gate  of  St.  Angelo  to  St.  Peter’s,  and  then  officiated  as 
deacon  at  a  mass  celebrated  by  Urban,  who  placed  the 
crown  on  the  head  of  the  emperor’s  fourth  wife.?  But 
we  learn  from  an  eye-witness  that,  while  the  clergy  were 
exulting  over  this  subordination  of  the  temporal  to  the 
spiritual  dignity,  other  persons  viewed  with  deep  disgust 
a  scene  which  they  regarded  as  a  humiliation  of  the 
empire.2  The  pope  himself  was  disappointed  at  finding 
that  Charles,  instead  of  carrying  out  an  alliance  against 
Bernabb  Visconti,  made  peace  with  him  on  condition  of 
receiving  a  large  sum  of  money.3.  In  like  manner  the 
emperor  allowed  himself  to  be  bought  off  by  various 
cities  on  his  way  homewards ;  and,  as  after  his  former 


*  Garos.  769 ;  Gregorov.  vi.  424. 
Although  the  city  was  then  in  a  melan¬ 
choly  state  of  decay  (see  Murat.  Annal. 
VIII.  ii.  156),  the  statement  of  some 
writers,  that  it  had  only  17,000  inhabit¬ 
ants,  is  mistaken.  Greg.  vi.  427,  429. 
See  Hefele,  vi.  616. 

u  Urban  gave  the  golden  rose  to 
Joanna,  “  tanquam  notabiliori,  majori, 
et  excellentiori  ”  of  the  persons  then 
at  Rome.”  (Baluz.  i.  381.)  [The 
golden  rose  is  consecrated  on  the  fourth 
Sunday  in  Lent,  and  is  given  by  the 
pope  to  such  princes  as  have  rendered 
signal  services  to  the  church.  The 
origin  of  this  custom  is  uncertain,  but 


is  commonly  referred  to  Leo  IX.  See 
Herzog,  art.  Rose ,  die  Goldene. ] 
x  Baluz.  i.  387,  410;  Garos.  772-3; 
Rayn.  1369.  1-4  ;  1370.  1.  See  below, 
c.  ix. 

y  Baluz.  i.  409  ;  Garos.  771.  The 
emperor,  however,  did  not  read  the 
Gospel  in  the  mass,  as  the  privilege  of 
doing  so  was  confined  to  Christmas. 
See  above,  p.  168. 

*  Colluccio  Salutati,  quoted  by 
Schrockh,  xxxi.  225.  [Salutati  has 
not  yet  been  published.] 
a  J.  Trithem.  Chron.  Spanh.  a.d. 
1364  ;  Schmidt,  iii.  658. 


190 


URBAN  RETURNS  TO  AVIGNON. 


Book  VIII. 


visit,  he  returned  to  Prague  with  the  general  contempt 
of  the  Italians.b 

Urban’s  favourite  place  of  residence  was  Monte  Fias- 
cone,  which  he  preferred  to  Rome  on  account  of  its  quiet 
and  of  its  more  salubrious  air;c  and  there,  in  September 
1368,  he  increased  the  preponderance  of  the  French 
party  among  the  cardinals  by  adding  six  Frenchmen  to 
the  college,  while  of  other  nations  there  were  only  one 
Italian  and  one  Englishman.*1 

After  three  years  spent  in  Italy,  the  pope  announced 
his  intention  of  returning  to  Avignon.  To  the  Romans, 
who  remonstrated,  he  expressed  gratitude  for  the  peace 
which  he  and  the  members  of  his  court  had  enjoyed 
among  them,  and  assured  them  that  he  would  still  be 
with  them  in  heart ;  but  he  alleged  the  necessity  of  public 
affairs e — a  plea  which,  although  it  might  have  been  war¬ 
ranted  by  the  renewal  of  war  between  France  and  England, 
is  supposed  to  have  really  meant  that  the  French  cardinals 
would  no  longer  endure  to  be  at  a  distance  from  the  de¬ 
lights  of  Avignon.1  St.  Bridget  of  Sweden,  whose  oracles 
exercised  a  powerful  influence  on  the  age,  solemnly 
warned  the  pope  that,  if  he  returned  to  France,  it  would 
be  only  to  die; 2  Peter  of  Aragon  added  his  monitions 


Chron.  Est.  in  Murat,  xv.  491  ; 
Murat.  Ann.  VIII.  ii.  167;  Gregorov. 
vi.  433- 

c  Cron.  d’Orvieto,  in  Murat,  xv.  693. 
In  one  respect  it  may  have  reminded 
him  of  Avignon,  “est  enim  veluti 
quaedam  Aioli  domus,”  says  Pius  II., 
who  could  not  bear  its  winds.  Gobel- 
linus,  Comment.  204. 
d  Garos.  770  ;  Dollinger,  ii.  274. 

6  Baluz.  i.  424;  Garos.  774;  Rayn. 
1370.  19. 

f  See  Petrarc.  ed.  Fracass.  iii.  31 1 ; 
Senil.  xiii.  p.  1026,  ed.  Basil. ;  Schrockh, 
xxi.  226. 

6  Rayn.  1379.  9  ;  Baluz.  i.  414  ;  Gre¬ 
gorov.  vi.  436-7.  For  St.  Bridget,  see 


the  Acta  Sanctorum,  Oct.  8  ;  as  to  her 
revelations  especially,  pp.  409,  seqq., 
513.  These  were  examined  by  order 
of  Gregory  XI.  both  during  her  lifetime 
and  after  her  death,  and  were  approved 
by  him  and  by  later  popes.  Bridget, 
who  was  of  the  royal  blood  of  Sweden, 
and  had  been  married  to  Ulf,  prince 
of  Nericia,  lived  chiefly  at  Rome  from 
the  jubilee  of  1350  until  her  death  in 
1373,  daily  visiting  churches  on  foot 
through  all  the  inclemencies  of  wea¬ 
ther,  etc.  She  founded  an  order  which 
had  its  chief  seat  at  Wadstena,  in  Swe¬ 
den,  but  spread  beyond  the  bounds  of 
Scandinavia  ;  and  in  the  headship  of 
this  she  was  succeeded  by  her  daughter 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1368-70. 


GREGORY  XI. 


I9I 


Dec.  9,  1370. 


to  the  same  purpose;11  and  these  prophetic  threats  were 
supposed  to  be  fulfilled  when  Urban’s  arrival  at  Avignon 
was  followed  within  three  months  by  his 
death.1  In  his  last  sickness  he  formally  re¬ 
tracted  anything  (if  such  there  were)  that  he  might  have 
taught  or  said  contrary  to  the  faith  of  the  church. k  The 
general  reverence  for  his  character  was  expressed  in  a 
belief  that  miracles  were  done  at  his  grave  :l  and  it  is 
supposed  that  his  canonization,  which  wTas  solicited  by 
Waldemar  III.  of  Denmark  and  others,  was  prevented 
only  by  the  troubles  which  soon  after  came  on  the 
papacy.m 

On  the  30th  of  December,  Peter  Roger,  cardinal  of 
Sta.  Maria  Nuova,  was  elected  to  the  vacant  chair,  and 
took  the  name  of  Gregory  XI.  He  was  a  nephew  of 
Clement  VI.,  by  whom  he  had  been  advanced  to  the 
cardinalate  at  the  age  of  seventeen  or  eighteen  ;n  but 
Clement,  “lest  he  should  seem  to  have  conferred  with 
flesh  and  blood,”0  had  been  careful  to  place  the  young 
cardinal  under  the  best  tutors,  so  that  Gregory  was 
respected  for  his  learning  in  civil  and  in  canon  law,  as 
well  as  for  his  modesty,  prudence,  and  generosity. p  The 
chief  defect  noted  in  him  was  that  same  regard  for  family 
interests  to  which  he  had  owed  his  own  early  promotion.** 

Gregory  took  an  active  part  in  the  affairs  of  Italy, 


St.  Catharine,  The  order  combined 
members  of  both  sexes,  who  lived  in 
separate  cloisters,  but  had  their  church, 
their  cellar,  and  their  kitchen  in  com¬ 
mon.  (Antonin.  414.)  Bridget  was 
canonized  by  Boniface  IX.  (Rayn. 
1391.  29.)  Attempts  were  made  to  pro¬ 
cure  from  the  council  of  Basel  and  from 
Eugenius  IV.  a  formal  authorization 
of  her  prophecies,  but  no  decided  step 
was  taken  in  consequence.  Hefele,  vii. 
559-6o. 

h  Wadd.  1367.  1  ;  1370.  20;  Gobel. 
Persona  in  Meibohm.  i.  292. 


1  Rayn.  I.  c.  He  is  reputed  to  have 
said  on  his  death-bed,  “  Merito  hoc 
patior  quia  reliquimus  sedem  patrum 
nostrorum.”  C.  Zantfl.  in  Mart.  Coll. 
Ampl.  v.  292. 

k  Baluz.  i.  413.  1  lb.  430. 

m  Dollinger,  ii.  277. 
n  Baluz.  i.  225,  275,  425.  Among 
his  preferments  was  the  archdeaconry 
of  Canterbury.  Baluz.  i.  1061. 

0  (Galat.  i.  16)  ;  Baluz.  i.  478. 
p  lb.  425-6,  442-79. 

‘J  lb.  441  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  230. 


192 


MASSACRE  OF  CESENA. 


Book  VIII. 


where  Bernabb  Visconti  and  his  brother  Galeazzo  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  formidable.1-  In  1372  a  bull  was  issued  by 
which  they  were  excommunicated,  their  subjects  were  re¬ 
leased  from  allegiance,  and  all  Christians  were  invited  to 
take  part  in  a  holy  war  against  them.s  There  were  serious 
commotions  in  the  papal  states,  where  eighty  towns 
threw  off  their  subjection  to  Rome.  Robert,  cardinal  of 
Geneva,  was  sent  into  the  Romagna  as  legate,  with  a 
band  of  Breton  mercenaries,  whose  acts  of  license  excited 
the  detestation  of  the  people.1  At  Cesena  a  rising  took 
place,  in  which  some  hundreds  of  them  were  killed,0  and 
the  rest  were  driven  from  the  town.  The  legate,  having 
secured  the  co-operation  of  the  famous  condottiere  Sir 
John  Hawkwood,  persuaded  the  citizens  to  admit  him 
peaceably,  allowing  that  they  had  received 
e  ‘  Ij77‘  great  provocation  from  his  troops,  and  even 
(it  is  said)  swearing  that  no  vengeance  should  be  taken  if 
they  would  lay  down  their  arms.  Having  thus  lulled 
them  into  security,  he  then  gave  loose  to  a  massacre  in 
which,  according  to  some  writers,  three  thousand  perished, 
while  others  reckon  the  number  at  four,  five,  or  even 
eight  thousands  A  thousand  women  were  saved  by  the 


r  See  for  a  curious  character  of  Ga¬ 
leazzo,  Pet.  Azarius  in  Murat,  xvi.  403  ; 
also  his  directions  for  torturing  con¬ 
spirators,  ib.  410.  A  course  of  forty- 
two  days  is  ended  with  “  in  rota  pona- 
tur.”  A  Piacenza  chronicler,  John  de 
Mussis,  defends  the  Visconti  in  their 
relations  with  the  church.  It  is  true, 
he  says,  that  they  tax  the  clergy  heavily 
and  take  away  their  revenues ;  but 
this,  instead  of  being  the  cause,  is  the 
consequence,  of  the  wars  which  the 
popes  make  against  the  family.  Mu¬ 
rat.  xvi.  523. 

8  Cron.  Bologn.  492  ;  Baluz.  i.  431 ; 
Rayn.  1372.  1-2.  By  one  document, 
all  marriage  with  female  members  of 
the  family  was  forbidden  ;  but  this 
proved  ineffectual.  (Milm.  v.  340.) 


There  are  two  letters  against  a  pro¬ 
jected  marriage  between  Albert  of 
Austria  and  a  daughter  of  Galeazzo 
(1374).  Such  a  marriage,  it  is  said, 
would  be  null  beforehand  ;  the  child¬ 
ren  would  be  illegitimate  ;  and  Albert 
is  threatened  with  anathema  if  he 
should  go  on  with  it  (Mailath,  i.  183). 
Bernabb  offered  one  of  his  daughters 
to  Richard  II.  of  England,  “cum  in- 
credibiliaurisumma.”  Walsingh.  ii.  46. 

1  Antonin.  380-2 ;  Schrockh,  xxxi. 

232-3- 

u  The  Rimini  chronicler  says  “  more 
than  100”  (Murat,  xv.  917);  the  chro¬ 
nicler  of  Bologna,  ‘  ‘  more  than  300  ” 
(ib.  xvii.  510),  while  others  make  the 
number  800. 

x  See  N.  Donati,  253  ;  Th.  Niem,  ii. 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1376-7.  FLORENCE  UNDER  BAN. 


T93 


humanity  of  Hawkwood,  who  furnished  them  with  an 
escort ; y  but  atrocious  acts  of  cruelty  were  committed  by 
the  infuriated  Bretons ;  and  it  is  said  that  the  cardinal 
overcame  the  scruples  of  Hawkwood  and  his  men  by 
desiring  that  all  the  inhabitants  might  be  killed  indis¬ 
criminately.2 

The  Florentines,  for  their  resistance  to  the  papal 
authority,  against  which  they  had  formed  an  extensive 
league, a  were  put  under  ban  and  interdict  in  March 
i376.b  It  was  even  declared  that  they  might  be  made 
slaves,  and  advantage  was  taken  of  this  against  many  of 
them  who  were  in  England;0  while  their  old  rivals  of 
Genoa  and  Pisa,  by  scrupling  to  act  on  the  permission, 
incurred  the  penalty  of  interdict  against  themselves.d 
The  Florentines  entreated  the  mediation  of  St.  Catharine 
of  Siena,  whose  austerities  were  supposed  to  be  connected 
with  prophetic  insight  ;e  and  she,  having  repaired  to 
Avignon  for  the  purpose  of  pleading  their 
cause, f  used  the  opportunity  to  set  before  0 

the  pope  the  misgovernment  of  the  ecclesiastical  states, 
and  to  urge  his  return  to  Rome.g  The  voice  of  Petrarch 


i ;  Chron.  Regiense,  in  Murat,  xviii. 
87;  Cron.  Bolon.  510;  Chron.  Rimin. 
917-18  ;  Annal.  Mediol.  764-7  ;  Murat. 
Ann.  VIII.  ii.  202  ;  Poggio,  in  Murat, 
xx.  235-6.  See  also  a  French  poem 
by  William  de  la  Perenne,  on  the  ex¬ 
ploits  of  the  Bretons  in  Italy,  Martene, 
Thes.  iii.  1467-9. 

y  Cron.  Est.  500. 

z  Antonin.  383.  Nero  Donati  says 
that  when  Hawkwood,  on  being  asked 
to  co-operate  with  the  cardinal,  offered 
to  bring  the  citizens  to  a  peace,  the 
reply  was,  “No!  blood,  blood,  and 
justice  !  ”  (252).  “  Nedum  prselatum 

ecclesiasticum,  vices  tenentem  vicarii 
Jesu  Christi,  sed  Herodem  et  Nero- 
nem  dedecuisset  tam  ssevissima  sceles- 
taque  vindicta.”  (Ant.  1.  c.)  The 
Rimini  chronicler  says,  “  Questo  car- 

VOL.  VII. 


dinale  era  uomo  di  Diavolo.”  (Murat, 
xviii.)  a  Annal.  Mediol.  761,  763. 

b  Baluz.  i.  434 ;  Antonin.  378-9  ; 
Rayn.  1376.  1-5  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  461. 

c  Walsingh.  ii.  323 ;  Chron.  Anglirn, 
ed.  Thompson,  iii. 

d  N.  Donati,  249 ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
462-3.  At  Avignon,  the  Florentines 
were  driven  out,  and  their  property 
was  seized.  Baluz.  i.  452. 
e  Rayn.  1376.  6. 

f  Lettere  di  S.  Cat.  230,  232,  etc. 
e  Rayn.  1376.  70 ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
452,  465.  See  S.  Cat.  Lett.  125,  131. 
185,  etc.  In  Lett.  229  she  exhorts 
him  to  come  quickly,  “  da  parte  di 
Cristo  crocifisso  ” — “  E  guardate  per 
quanto  voi  avete  cara  la  vita,  non 
veniate  con  sforzo  di  gente,  ma  con  la 
croce  in  mano,  come  agnello  man- 

J3 


194 


PROPHETESSES. 


Book  VIII 


was  no  longer  to  be  heard  in  the  cause  which  he  had 
so  often  advocated  ;h  but  St.  Bridget  of  Sweden,  who 
had  seen  the  beginning  of  Gregory’s  pontificate,  had 
solemnly  warned  him,  on  the  ground  of  revelations,  that, 
unless  he  returned  to  Rome  within  a  certain  time,  the 
States  of  the  Church  would  be  rent  asunder,  even  as 
her  messenger  was  charged  to  rend  the  letter  which 
he  conveyed;1  and  her  prophetical  authority  had  been 
inherited  by  her  daughter,  St.  Catharine  of  Sweden, 
who  now  joined  her  representations  to  those  of  the 
virgin  of  Siena. k 

It  is  said  that  Gregory  had  vowed  that,  if  he  should  be 


sueto!”  In  Lett.  239  she  begs  him 
to  disregard  the  hints  of  poison  ;  there 
is  poison  (i.e.  wine)  on  the  tables  of 
Avignon  and  other  cities,  as  well  as 
on  those  of  Rome.  There  are  many 
other  letters  of  free  advice  to  the 
pope — e.  g.,  133,  218,  233,  238,  255, 
267.  For  St.  Catharine  of  Siena,  see 
the  Acta  Sanctorum,  April  30 ;  Hase, 
*  Caterina  von  Siena,’  Leipz.  1864 ; 
Capecelatro,  ‘  Storia  di  S.  Cat.  da 
Siena’  ;  Milman,  v.  391-3  ;  Reumont, 
ii.  973 ;  and  her  letters,  edited  by 
Tommaseo,  4  vols.,  Florence,  i860. 
She  was  the  daughter  of  a  dyer  whose 
family  name  was  Benencasa,  and  was 
born  in  1347.  We  are  told  by  her  con¬ 
fessor,  Raymond  of  Capua  (afterwards 
general  of  the  Dominicans),  that  she 
had  visions  from  her  sixth  year  ;  that 
in  her  seventh  year  she  vowed  to  the 
Blessed  Virgin  that  she  would  have  no 
other  bridegroom  than  the  Saviour. 
(Vita,  29,  35-6,  in  Acta  SS.)  She  re¬ 
fused  all  offers  of  marriage,  and  led  a 
life  of  extreme  asceticism,  even  for  a 
time  abstaining  from  all  food  and  drink 
— of  which  abstinence  the  biographer 
says,  “  non  video  quod  sit  possibile  per 
naturam”  (60).  In  later  years,  she 
used  to  live  for  many  weeks  without 
any  other  sustenance  than  the  holy 
eucharist ;  when  she  ate,  it  was  with 
pain,  and  for  the  sake  of  overcoming 


obloquy  which  her  severities  raised 
against  her  (166-76).  She  became  a 
sister  of  penance  of  the  order  of  St. 
Dominic  (69).  Her  mystical  marriage 
with  the  Saviour  is  related  in  cc.  1 14-15  ; 
and  it  is  said  that  she  always  saw  the 
ring  which  He  placed  on  her  finger, 
while  to  others  it  was  invisible.  Among 
other  tokens  of  special  favour,  we  are 
told  that  in  a  vision  the  Saviour  opened 
her  side,  took  out  her  heart,  and  after 
some  days  put  his  own  heart  in  its 
place — a  car  being  left  in  witness  of 
the  operation  (179);  that,  at  commu¬ 
nion,  she  often  saw  Him  entering  her 
mouth  in  the  form  of  a  child  (181); 
and  that  she  received  the  stigmata, 
which,  although  invisible,  made  them¬ 
selves  known  by  the  pain  which  they 
caused  (192-4).  Catharine  died  in  1380, 
and  was  canonized  by  Pius  II.  in  1461. 
(See  the  ‘Processus,’  in  Martene, 
Coll.  Ampl.  vi.  1237-1386.)  On  the 
development  of  the  marvellous  in  her 
story,  see  Hase,  xi.-xii.,  25.  Strange 
as  much  of  that  story  is  to  us,  we  can¬ 
not  but  admire  the  spirit  of  love  to  God 
and  man  which  animates  her  letters. 

h  He  died  July  18,  1374. 

1  Gobel.  Persona,  202 ;  Rayn.  1379. 
10. 

k  For  St.  Catharine  of  Sweden,  see 
Acta  SS.,  May  24  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  446. 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1376-7.  RETURN  OF  THE  PAPACY. 


195 


chosen  pope,  he  would  return  to  Rome;1  and,  in  addition 
to  all  other  incitements,  he  was  now  convinced  that  his 
interest  in  Italy  suffered,  and  was  even  in  danger  of  being 
absolutely  ruined,  through  his  absence.111  The  Bolognese 
had  driven  out  the  legate  and  all  the  papal  officials ;  the 
sovereignty  of  the  church  was  hardly  anywhere  acknow¬ 
ledged  throughout  the  ecclesiastical  states.11  It  is  said, 
too,  that  the  pope  was  much  influenced  by  the  repartee  of 
a  bishop,  who,  on  being  asked  by  him  why  he  did  not  go 
to  his  diocese,  retorted  the  question  on  Gregory  himself.0 
In  1376  Gregory  announced  his  intention  of  returning 
to  Rome;  and,  although  it  was  opposed  by  the  French 
king,  by  his  own  relations,11  and  by  many  of  his  cardinals, *1 
six  of  whom  refused  to  leave  Avignon,  he  set  out  on  the 
13th  of  September.1-  After  a  tedious  journey,  performed 
partly  by  land  and  partly  by  sea,  he  landed  at  St.  Paul’s 
on  the  15th  of  January  1377,  and  his  entrance  into 
Rome  was  welcomed  with  great  demonstrations  of 


1  Baluz.  i.  401. 

m  lb.  437.  The  Romans  are  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  designed  to  set  up  the 
abbot  of  Monte  Cassino  as  antipope. 
Ib.  1994. 

0  N.  Donati,  in  Murat,  xv.  247,  who 
regards  this  as  a  just  judgment  on 
the  faults  of  the  prelates  and  clergy. 
Cf.  Annal.  Mediol.,  ib.  xvi.  761.  John 
de  Mussis  traces  the  frequent  rebellions 
to  the  circumstance  that  the  popes  were 
in  the  habit  of  bestowing  governments 
on  their  own  relatives,  who,  knowing 
that  their  tenure  would  end  with  the 
life  of  their  patrons,  had  no  other  object 
than  to  extort  as  much  mone  y  as  pos¬ 
sible  within  the  time.  Ib.  527. 

0  Baluz.  i.  479. 

P  Charles  V.  sent  the  duke  of  Anjou 
to  Avignon  for  the  purpose  of  remon¬ 
strating.  (Froiss.  vii.  67.)  A  biogra¬ 
pher  says  that,  as  the  pope  set  forth, 
his  mother  threw  herself  down  on  the 
threshold  of  the  palace,  and,  baring  her 


breast,  exclaimed  in  piteous  tones, 
“  Whither  goest  thou,  my  son  ?  I  shall 
never  see  thee  more.”  To  which  Gre¬ 
gory  replied,  “  Corpore  tamen  trans 
passum  non  calcato,” — “  It  is  written, 

‘  Super  aspidem  et  basiliscum  ambu- 
labis.’”  ([Ps.  xc.  13.]  Baluz.  i.  481.) 
But  his  mother  had  really  been  long 
dead.  (Ib.  1234.)  Another  writer  says 
that  he  left  Avignon  in  order  to  escape 
from  the  importunities  of  his  kinsmen. 
Ib.  483. 

1  See  Rayn.  1379.  10;  S.  Cater., 
Lett.  231. 

r  Baluz.  i.  438,  and  note.  In  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  assumptions  of  the  elder 
cardinals,  Gregory  made  twelve  new 
ones.  (Ib.  481.)  It  is  said  that  the 
pope’s  horse  would  hardly  allow  him 
to  mount,  and  afterwards  refused  to 
move,  so  that  he  was  obliged  to  get 
another  ;  and  hence  many  inferred  that 
he  was  acting  against  God’s  will.  Ib. 
483. 


196 


DEATH  OF  GREGORY  XI. 


Book  VIII 


joy.s  The  “  Babylonian  captivity  ”  of  seventy  years 
was  ended. 

Gregory,  however,  soon  found  that  his  course  was 
beset  with  difficulties.  Although  the  hostility  of  the 
Visconti  had  been  appeased  by  a  compact  that  Galeazzo 
should  retain  certain  towns  on  consideration  of  paying 
a  sum  of  money  to  the  papal  treasury/  the  differences 
with  Florence  still  remained,  and  the  nobles  of  Rome 
and  of  the  ecclesiastical  states  were  insubordinate.11  The 
pope  could  not  feel  himself  at  home  in  his  capital.  The 
ruinous  state  of  the  walls,  the  churches,  the  palaces,  and 
other  buildings,  depressed  him.  The  long  absence  of 
the  court,  and  the  anarchy  of  Rome,  had  produced  an 
offensive  rudeness  in  the  manners  of  the  citizens. x  Even 
his  want  of  acquaintance  with  the  language  of  his  subjects 
— the  meaning  of  which  he  could  only  guess  at  by  the 
help  of  Latin,  French,  and  Provencal — aggravated  not  a 
little  the  discomfort  of  Gregory;s  positions  It  is  believed 
that  he  meditated  a  return  to  Avignon,  when  he  was 
seized  with  an  illness,  which,  acting  on  a  weak  con¬ 
stitution,  carried  him  off  on  the  27th  of  March  1378,  at 
the  age  of  forty-seven.2  His  feeling  towards  the  saints 
whose  prophetical  admonitions  had  influenced  him  in  his 
removal  to  Rome  is  said  to  have  been  remarkably  shown 
on  his  death-bed,  when,  holding  the  holy  eucharist  in  his 


8  Baluz.  i.  438,  455.  There  is  a 
strange  poem  (?)  by  Peter,  bishop  of 
Sinigaglia,  entitled  *  Itinerarium  D. 
Gregorii  Papse  XI.’— of  which  a  small 
specimen  will  be  enough  : — • 

“  Facta  visitatione  S.  Pauli  palatii,  ordina- 
taque  processione  donium  Prtesul  egre- 
ditur, 

Via  incepta  obviant  pontifici  histriones, 
cum  filozis  [ distaffs ]  via  tractatur, 

Luta  sunt  nimia,  infinitus  eet  apparatus, 
chorizantes  in  jubilo  omnes  progrediun- 
tur, 

Tuba  clangente,  convocataque  acie  mira- 
bili,  vexiiia  eriguntur.” 


(Ciacon.  ii.  585,  or  Murat.  III.  ii.  690, 
seqq.)  As  to  the  histriones,  see  Gre- 
gorov.  vi.  471-3. 

1  Schrockh,  xxxi.  233. 

u  Baluz.  i.  439. 

x  “  Labefactati  etiam  ita  civitatis 
mores  erant  ut  nihil  urbanitatis  habere 
viderentur  ;  utque  illi  mores  aliunde 
petcndi  essent  quae  totum  orbem 
quondam  ad  urbanitatem  redegerat.” 
Platina,  266. 

y  Tommaseo,  n.  on  S.  Cater,  iii.  284. 

z  Baluz.  i.  441-2  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  4S2. 


Chap.  IV.  a.d.  1376-7.  GREGORY  AND  CHARLES  IV. 


I97 


<  hands,  he  warned  those  who  stood  around  against  the 
pretensions  of  enthusiastic  men  or  women  who  uttered 
as  revelations  the  fancies  of  their  own  brains.3, 

A  Florentine  embassy  had  been  well  received  at  Rome, 
but  the  terms  of  reconciliation  which  Gregory  proposed 
were  too  severe  to  be  accepted ;  and  when  the  pope  in 
turn  sent  some  envoys  to  Florence,  the  citizens  not  only 
refused  to  submit  to  their  proposals,  but  compelled  the 
clergy  to  defy  the  interdict,  which  had  until  then  been 
so  far  respected  that  the  offices  of  religion  had  been 
performed  with  closed  doors. b  The  pope  retaliated  by 
aggravated  denunciations  ;  but  at  length  certain  terms 
of  peace  had  been  agreed  on,  when  the  death  of  Gregory 
put  an  end  to  the  negotiation.0 

The  eagerness  of  Charles  IV.  to  secure  the  imperial 
crown  for  his  own  family  had  furnished  Gregory  with  an 
opportunity  for  asserting  the  papal  claim  to  a  control 
over  elections  to  the  empire.  On  the  emperor’s  pro¬ 
posing  that  his  son  Wenceslaus,  then  only  seventeen  years 
of  age,  should  be  chosen  as  king  of  the  Romans,  some  of 
the  electors  (perhaps  from  a  wish  to  hide  their  own  dislike 
of  the  scheme)  expressed  an  apprehension  that  the  pope 
might  object;  and  Charles,  in  contradiction  to  the  prin¬ 
ciples  asserted  by  the  union  of  Rhense  in  i338,d  and 
afterwards  in  his  own  golden  bull,e  applied  for  the  pope’s 
consent.1  The  election  of  a  son  during  his 
father’s  lifetime  was  opposed  to  the  Roman  ' 
policy,  which  discouraged  the  idea  of  inheritance  in  the 
imperial  crown,  and  even  Rudolf  of  Hapsburg  had  failed 
in  a  similar  request.^  But  Gregory,  in  consideration  of 

a  Gerson,  Opera,  i.  16  (who  has  b  N.  Donati,  256. 

much  to  say  against  such  prophecies).  c  Antonin.  384-8  ;  Baluz.  i.  441  ; 

Mansi  questions  the  story  (n.  in  Rayn.  Chron.  Rimin.  918. 
t.  vii.  299).  Boniface  IX.  regards  the  d  See  above,  p.  134. 

deaths  of  Urban  and  Gregory  as  tokens  e  See  above,  p.  183. 

of  Divine  Providence  in  favour  of  f  Baluz.  i.  439,  1202  ;  ii.  793  ;  Rayn. 
Rome.  Dach.  Spied,  i.  767.  1376.  13.  e  See  vol.  vi.  p.  293. 


198  AFFAIRS  OF  GERMANY  AND  SICILY. 


Book  VIII. 


the  advantage  which  the  papacy  might  derive  from  the  » 
acknowledgment  that  his  sanction  was  necessary,  assented 
after  some  delay,  although  with  the  warning  that  his 
assent  was  not  to  become  a  precedent.11  Although 
Charles  himself,  in  his  golden  bull,  had  charged  the 
electors  to  give  their  votes  gratuitously ,  and  had  pre¬ 
scribed  that  they  should  swear  to  do  so,  he  was  obliged 
to  pay  heavily,  both  in  money  and  in  capitulations,  for 
his  son’s  election,  and  even  to  pledge  or  alienate  some 
cities  and  territories  which  belonged  to  the  imperial 
crown.1 

In  another  quarter  Gregory  obtained  a  success  which 
was  rather  apparent  than  real.  The  long  contest  between 
the  Angevine  dynasty  of  Naples  and  the  house  of  Aragon 
forthe  possession  of  Sicily  was  ended  in  1372  by  a  treaty 
which  Frederick  of  Sicily  concluded  with  Joanna  and  her 
husband  Lewis.  By  this,  the  island  was  to  be  held  under 
the  Apulian  crown,  on  condition  of  paying  tribute,  and 
of  furnishing  soldiers  in  case  of  war;  and  the  title  ot 
king  of  Sicily  was  to  belong  to  the  sovereign  of  Apulia, 
while  the  actual  ruler  was  to  style  himself  king  ot 
Trinacria.  The  “Sicilian  monarchy, ”k  which,  although 
originally  sanctioned  by  a  pope,  had  been  a  grievous 
offence  to  his  successors,  was  to  be  abolished  ;  and  in 
other  respects  the  treaty  was  greatly  in  favour  of  the 
papacy.1  But  these  terms  were  never  carried  into  effect. 
The  papal  confirmation  was  not  sought  either  by  Frede¬ 
rick  or  by  his  daughter  Mary,  who  succeeded  him  in 
1377.  Sicily  never  performed  the  feudal  obligations 
which  had  been  stipulated ;  and  its  sovereigns,  so  long 

u  Rayn.  1.  c. ;  Schiockh,  xxxi.  236-7;  penses  incurred  by  Charles,  “  pro  igna- 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  96;  Palacky,  II.  ii.  vissimae  pecudis,  filii  sui  Wentzlai,  pro- 
388.  For  the  election,  see  Baluz.  ii.  vectione,”  see  Krantz,  ‘  Saxonia,’  285. 
794.  k  See  vol.  iv.  p.  419, 

1  iEn.  Sylv.  Hist.  Boh.  c.  33  ;  J.  1  Baluz.  i.  431  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  96. 
Trithem.  Chron.  Spanh.  a.d.  1378;  See  M.  Vill.  iv.  3,  as  to  an  earlier 
Theod.  Niem,  ii.  25.  As  to  the  ex-  treaty. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1378. 


ELECTION  OF  A  POPE. 


199 


as  the  island  remained  a  separate  kingdom,  bore  in  their 
title  the  name,  not  of  Trinacria,  but  of  “Sicily  beyond 
the  Strait.”  m 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  GREAT  SCHISM  OF  THE  WEST,  TO  THE  END  OF  THE 

COUNCIL  OF  PISA. 


A.D.  1378-1409. 

At  the  death  of  Gregory  XI.  the  Romans  were  resolved 
to  put  an  end,  if  possible,  to  the  residence  of  the  popes 
in  France,  by  insisting  that  one  of  their  own  countrymen 
should  be  chosen.a  Gregory,  foreseeing  the  danger  of  a 
schism,  had,  in  the  last  days  of  his  life,  made  a  decree 
that  a  pope  chosen  by  a  majority  of  the  car¬ 
dinals  should  be  acknowledged,  whether  the  ^Iaicl1 19’ 
election  were  made  in  Rome  or  elsewhere,  and  although 
the  usual  formalities  of  the  conclave  were  not  observed. b 
But  the  Romans  were  bent  on  carrying  out  their  purpose. 
In  order  that  the  cardinals  might  not  escape  from  the 
city,  they  took  the  keys  of  the  gates  from  the  officials  oi 
the  church,  and  replaced  the  sentinels  by  partisans  or 
their  own ;  they  expelled  the  nobles,  and,  with  a  view  to 
overawing  the  electors,  they  called  in  a  multitude  of 
armed  and  half-savage  peasants  from  the  neighbouring 
mountains,0  while  Italian  prelates,  within  and  without  the 


ra  Giann.  iv.  92  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  239. 
a  Platina,  267. 

b  Baluz.  i.  442  ;  Rayn  1378.  2  ;  Gre- 
gorov.  vi.  480  ;  Cartwright  on  Con¬ 
claves,  81. 


c  “  Rusticos  homines  effraenatos, 
utique  bestiales  ac  ratione  carentes, 
eorum  vocabulo  motitancirios  appella- 
tos.”  Baluz.  i.  444-5. 


200 


ELECTION  OF  A  SUCCESSOR 


Book  VIII. 


city,  were  busily  employed  in  stirring  up  the  people.*3 
The  number  of  cardinals  then  at  Rome  was  sixteen — four 
Italians,  a  Spaniard  (Peter  de  Luna),  and  eleven  French¬ 
men,  of  whom  seven  were  Limousins ;  while  of  the  other 
seven  members  of  the  college  one  was  employed  as  legate 
in  Tuscany,  and  the  rest  had  remained  at  Avignon. e  It 
was  with  difficulty  that  the  electors  were  able  to  make 
their  way  through  the  threatening  crowd  which 
pn  I'r‘  beset  the  Vatican,  and,  as  they  entered  the 
chamber  appointed  for  the  conclave,  they  were  alarmed 
by  a  violent  thunderstorm,1  which  seemed  like  an  omen 
of  coming  evil.  But  they  were  yet  more  terrified  by  the 
behaviour  of  the  multitude,  which  had  forced  its  way  into 
the  palace,  furiously  clamouring,  “We  will  have  a  Roman, 
or  at  least  an  Italian  !”  s  After  a  time  the  greater  part 
were  turned  out,  but  about  forty  persisted  in  remaining ; 
they  searched  the  beds  of  the  cardinals  and  the  most 
secret  corners  of  the  apartment,  in  order  to  discover  any 
men  who  might  be  hidden,  or  any  private  outlet  by  which 
the  electors  might  escape ;  and,  as  the  Romans  had  not 
allowed  the  usual  form  of  walling  up  the  entrance  to  be 
observed,  the  intruders  were  able  to  terrify  the  cardinals 
by  their  menaces  and  by  their  display  of  force.h 

The  French  cardinals,  although  more  than  twice  as 
many  as  all  the  rest,  were  weakened  by  a  division  among 
themselves  ;  for  the  Limousins,  who  for  six-and-thirty 
years  had  enjoyed  the  papacy  and  its  patronage,  wished 
to  choose  one  of  their  own  number,  while  the  other 
section,  headed  by  Robert  of  Geneva,  wras  resolutely 

d  Letter  of  cardinals,  Aug.  2,  in  etc.,  although  perhaps  with  something 
Baluz.  ii.  824-5.  of  a  bias  in  favour  of  Urban.  See,  too, 

e  lb.  825-6;  Th.  Niemde  Schismate,  Schwab,  ‘  Joh.  Gerson,’  i.  3. 
i.  1.  There  are  many  documents  re-  f  Baluz.  i.  456  ;  Theod.  Vrie,  in  V. 
lating  to  this  time  in  Rayn.  a.d.  1376,  d.  Hardt,  i.  39. 
in  Martene,  Thes.  iii.,  and  in  Du  Bou-  B  Baluz.  i.  445. 

lay.  The  various  accounts  are  care-  h  lb.  457 ;  ii.  826. 

fully  compared  by  Bp.  Hefele,  vi.  630, 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1378. 


TO  GREGORY  XI. 


201 


opposed  to  the  election  of  a  Limousin.  Each  of  these 
factions,  if  unable  to  carry  a  candidate  of  its  own,  would 
have  preferred  an  Italian  to  one  of  the  rival  French 
party ;  and  thus  the  Italians,  although  few,  found  that 
they  held  the  balance  in  their  hands.1 

As  the  tumult  increased,  two  bannerets  of  Rome  (the 
chiefs  of  the  regions  into  which  the  city  was  divided) 
asked  admittance,  and  urged  the  expediency  of  yielding 
to  the  wishes  of  the  people.  But  they  were  told  that 
the  election  was  a  matter  with  which  no  personal  regards 
must  interfere ;  that  the  cardinals,  after  having  celebrated 
the  mass  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  morrow,  would  be 
guided  by  Him  alone  in  their  choice.k  All  through  the 
night  the  uproar  waxed  wilder  and  wilder.  The  ruffians 
who  had  remained  in  the  palace,  after  having  unwil¬ 
lingly  consented  that  the  conclave  should  be  shut,  took 
up  their  position  in  the  room  below;  they  plundered 
the  papal  stores  of  food  and  wine;1  in  their  heightened 
excitement,  they  dashed  their  swords  and  lances  against 
the  ceiling,  so  as  to  add  to  the  terror  of  the  cardinals,  and 
even  made  preparations  as  if  for  burning  the  palace ; 
while  the  multitude  without  kept  up  their  cries  for  a 
Roman  or  an  Italian,  mingled  with  shouts  of  “Death 
to  the  cardinals!™  The  great  bells  of  St.  Peter’s  and 
of  the  Capitol  were  beaten  with  hammers  as  if  the  city 
were  on  fire.n 

In  the  morning  the  numbers  of  the  mob  were  greater 
than  ever.  When  the  cardinals  were  at  mass, 
the  words  of  the  service  could  not  be  heard  Apul  8‘ 
for  the  noise  without ;  and  now  the  cry  was  for  a  Roman 
only.0  The  cardinals  again  met  for  the  election,  while 
the  door  of  the  conclave  was  assailed  with  violent  blows, 


1  Pileus  de  Prata,  in  Dach.  Spicil. 
iii.  744  ;  Sism.  iv.  180  ;  Schwab,  107. 
k  Baluz.  i.  446-7,  459. 

1  Th.  de  Acerno  (Bp.  of  Luceria)  in 


Murat.  III.  ii.  720. 
m  Baluz.  i.  447  ;  ii.  826-7. 
n  lb.  840 ;  i.  461. 

0  lb.  448,  460  ;  ii.  827. 


202 


ELECTION  OF 


Book  VIII. 


and  the  noise  became  louder  every  momenta  It  was 
suggested  that  some  one  should  be  declared  pope,  in 
order  to  appease  the  multitude,  and  that  another  should 
be  privately  chosen,  with  a  view  to  his  being  afterwards 
substituted  for  the  first.*1  The  cardinal  of  Florence 
proposed  Francis  Tibaldeschi,  cardinal  of  St.  Sabina1-  and 
archpriest  of  St.  Peter’s,  the  oldest  member  of  the  college; 
but  the  motion  met  with  no  support ;  and  on  a  second 
vote,  all,  with  the  exception  of  James  Orsini,  who  de¬ 
clined  to  act  under  such  coercion,8  agreed  in  the  choice  of 
Bartholomew  Prignani,  archbishop  of  Bari,  who  was  not 
a  cardinal,  but,  as  being  at  once  an  Italian  and  a  subject 
of  the  French  sovereign  of  Naples,  might  be  supposed  to 
be  acceptable  to  both  parties.  On  the  announcement  ot 
the  election  an  accident  led  the  multitude  to  believe  that 
it  had  fallen  on  Tibaldeschi.  They  plundered  his  palace, 
according  to  the  custom  on  such  occasions,  forced  a  way 
into  the  conclave,  and  overwhelmed  the  old  man  with 
violent  congratulations,  while  he  strove  to  make  them 
understand  their  mistake,  and  desired  them,  even  with 
curses,  to  let  him  go.1  In  the  meantime  the  cardinals 
dispersed  in  terror,  leaving  their  hats  and  cloaks  behind 
them,  and  some  of  them  were  severely  handled  by  the 
mob.u 

Next  day,  however,  they  met  again  ;  and,  although  the 
announcement  of  the  archbishop  of  Bari’s  election  caused 
some  tumult,  as  his  title  was  mistaken  for 
pn  9‘  the  name  of  James  of  Bar,  a  Limousin  of  the 
papal  households  he  was  peaceably  invested  with  the 

p  Baluz.  i.  449.  Florence,  finding  the  archbishop  of 

<l  Antoninus  (iii.  389)  ascribes  this  Bari  chosen  by  the  rest,  joined  in  the 
suggestion  to  the  archbishop  of  Bari  election.  Th.  de  Acerno,  720,  722. 
himself.  r  Ciacon.  ii.  570.  ‘  Baluz.  i.  461 ;  ii.  842,  1093  ;  Pileus 

8  Thom,  de  Acerno  in  Murat.  III.  ii.  de  Prata,  in  Dach.  Spicil.  iii.  744. 

719.  Yet  Orsini  is  charged  with  having  “  Baluz.  i.  462-3  ;  ii.  842;  Pileus,  1.  c. 
originally  got  up  the  cry  for  an  Italian  x  Baluz.  ii.  829,  1215;  Theod.  Niem, 
(Th.  Niem,  i.  2).  The  cardinal  of  i.  2. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1378. 


URBAN  VI. 


203 


mantle  of  office.  It  is  said  that,  in  answer  to  his  doubts 
as  to  the  validity  of  his  election,  the  cardinals  assured  him 
that  all  had  been  rightly  and  fairly  doneA  He  received 
their  homage,  and  they  all  took  part  in  his  coronation, 
which  was  solemnly  performed  on  Easter  day.2  The  elec¬ 
tion  was  announced  to  the  sovereigns  of  Europe,  not,  as 
had  been  usual,  by  the  pope  himself,  but  by  the  car 
dinals  ;  and  they  also  reported  it  to  their  brethren  at 
Avignon  in  a  letter  which  declared  that  their  choice  had 
been  made  unanimously,  and  (as  they  professed  to 
believe)  under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit.3 

Urban  VI.  (as  the  new  pope  styled  himself)  was  a 
Neapolitan  of  humble  birth,  and  a  man  of  strictly  ascetic 
life.  He  was  deeply  read  in  ecclesiastical  law,  but  was 
more  especially  respected  for  his  devotion  to  the  study 
of  Scripture,  and  for  the  humility,  the  disinterestedness, 
the  equity,  and  the  compassion  which  were  supposed  to 
mark  his  character. b  But  almost  immediately  after  his 
elevation,  it  began  to  appear  that  some  of  the  virtues  by 
which  he  had  been  hitherto  distinguished  were  exchanged 
for  qualities  of  an  opposite  kind.  He  was  open  to 
flattery,  while,  in  dealing  with  his  cardinals  and  with 
other  high  ecclesiastics,  he  behaved  with  a  haughtiness 


y  Pileus,  in  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  744. 
z  lb.  744-5  ;  Baluz.  i.  463  ;  Theod. 
Niem,  i.  3  Th.  de  Acerno,  723. 
a  Baluz.  i.  540  2  ;  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  764. 
b  Theod.  Niem,  i.  1.  Theodoric  or 
Dietrich  of  Niem.  (Neheim,  in  the  dio¬ 
cese  of  Paderborn),  one  of  the  chief 
authorities  for  this  time,  was  secretary 
for  briefs  to  Gregory  XI.,  whom  he  ac¬ 
companied  from  Avignon  to  Rome,  and 
continued  to  hold  his  office  under  popes 
of  the  Roman  line  until  1410.  Boni¬ 
face  IX.  appointed  him  to  the  see  of 
Verdun,  but  he  was  kept  out  by  a  rival ; 
nor  was  he  able  to  get  possession  of 
Cambray,  to  which  he  was  afterwards 
nominated.  He  accompanied  John 


XXIII.  to  the  council  of  Constance, 
and  died  while  it  was  sitting.  He 
wrote  four  books,  ‘  De  Schismate  ’ — 
the  IVth,  which  bears  the  title  of  ‘  Ne- 
mus  Unionis,’  being  subdivided  into 
six  tracts;  also  a  ‘  Lifeof  John  XXIII.,’ 
which  is  printed  by  Von  der  Hardt 
(Magn.  Concil.  Constant,  t.  ii.).  The 
first  three  books  on  the  Schism  are 
here  cited  without  the  title.  Chron. 
Epp.  Verdun,  in  Leibn.  ii.  221 ;  Len- 
fant,  Hist,  du  Cone,  de  Const,  i.  577 
(where  the  identity  of  the  writer  with 
the  bishop  designate  of  Verdun  is 
questioned) ;  Herzog,  art.  Dietrich  von 
Niem. 


204 


URBAN  VI.  DESERTED 


Book  VIII. 


and  a  rudeness  which  were  felt  to  be  intolerable,  and 
called  forth  open  remonstrances.0  Even  his  good  actions 
were  so  done  as  to  produce  an  unfavourable  impression. 
He  announced  reforms  of  an  unpopular  kind,  without  any 
consideration  for  the  prejudices  or  the  interests  which 
might  be  affected  by  them.  He  threatened  to  reduce 
the  luxurious  cardinals  d  to  one  dish  at  table,  after  his 
own  example ;  to  overwhelm  the  French  influence  in  the 
college  by  the  addition  of  Romans  and  Italians;6  and  he 
further  provoked  the  French  cardinals  by  absolutely  re¬ 
fusing  to  go  to  Avignon.  Preaching  in  his  own  chapel, 
he  denounced  the  bishops  who  were  at  the  court  as  per¬ 
jured  for  neglecting  their  dioceses  ;  to  which  the  bishop 
of  Pampeluna  immediately  replied  that  the  charge  wras 
in  his  case  untrue,  as  he  was  there  on  diocesan  business.1 
The  pope  desired  the  cardinals  to  repair  to  the  churches 
from  which  they  took  their  titles,  and  to  reside  at  them. 
At  a  consistory  he  charged  such  of  them  as  had  been 
sent  on  embassies  with  having  allowed  themselves  to  be 
bribed ;  to  which  James  de  la  Grange,  cardinal  of  St. 
Marcellus,  retorted,  “  As  archbishop  of  Bari  you  lie !”  and 
the  cardinal,  who  was  one  s  of  the  French  king’s  coun¬ 
cillors,  went  off  to  use  his  influence  with  Charles  V.  in 
opposition  to  Urban.11  Joanna  of  Naples  had  celebrated 
the  election  of  the  Neapolitan  pope  by  public  festivities ; 1 
she  sent  him  magnificent  presents  of  money,  food,  and 


c  Th.  Niem,  i.  i  ;  Gobelin.  Persona, 
295  :  “  Fuit  in  homine  illo  natura  in- 
quieta  et  dura.  Nulla  patribus  gratia 
qui  se  potissimum  delegissent,  nulla 
humanitas,  nulla  conciliatio  animorum ; 
sed  contumax  et  minabundus  et  asper, 
malebat  vitari  et  metui  potius  quam 
diligi.”  Letter  of  the  cardinals  in 
Baluz.  ii.  839. 

d  There  is  a  curious  invective  against 
the  habits  of  the  cardinals  by  a  writer 
on  Urban’s  side,  John  de  Lignano,  in 
Rayn.  t.  vii.  636. 


e  Th.  Niem,  i.  5  ;  Sism.  R.  I.  iv. 
188,  etc. 

f  Th.  Niem.  i.  4. 

*  Ad.  Murimuth.  Cont.  231. 
h  Walsingh.  i.  381-2.  One  version  ot 
the  saying  is  that  given  in  the  text ; 
another  is — “  I  cannot  answer  you  as 
pope  ;  but  if  you  were  still  the  archi- 
episcopellus  of  Bari,  I  would  tell  the 
archbishop  that  he  lied  in  his  throat.” 
See  Baluz.  i.  1158-9. 

1  Gobel.  Pers.  296. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1378. 


BY  THE  CARDINALS. 


205 


wine,  and  deputed  her  husband,  duke  Otho  of  Brunswick, k 
to  convey  her  congratulations  and  respects  to  him ;  but 
Urban,  although  he  had  formerly  been  on  terms  of  friend¬ 
ship  with  the  duke,  now  treated  him  with  such  discourtesy 
that  Otho  returned  to  Naples  indignant  and  alienated.1 
St.  Catharine  of  Siena,  although  she  adhered  zealously  to 
Urban  in  the  differences  which  afterwards  arose,  found 
herself  compelled  to  remonstrate  with  him  on  his  irasci¬ 
bility  and  on  the  impolicy  of  his  behaviour.111 

The  majority  of  the  cardinals,  angry  and  disgusted  at 
his  treatment  of  them,  and  the  more  so  because  they  saw 
that  he  endeavoured  to  ingratiate  himself  with  the  people 
of  Rome,  began  to  question  the  soundness  of  the  pope’s 
mind,n  and  to  consider  how  they  might  rid  themselves  of 
him.  One  by  one  they  made  their  way  out  of  the  city, 
and  assembled  at  Anagni,  where  they  invited  Urban  to 
join  them.0  Instead  of  complying  with  this  request,  he 
summoned  them  to  Tivoli,  where  he  was  with  the  four 
Italian  cardinals ;  but  they  answered  that  they  could  not 
conveniently  leave  Anagni,  as  they  had  laid  in  large  stores 
of  provisions  there.p  Their  design,  which  had  probably 
been  nothing  more  than  to  draw  Urban  into  a  capitula¬ 
tion,  was  now  carried  further.  In  the  presence  of  three 
of  their  Italian  brethren,  who  had  conveyed  the  pope’s 
invitation,  they  swore  on  the  Gospels  that  their  consent 
to  Urban’s  election  had  been  extorted  only  by  the  fear 


k  For  the  queen’s  fourth  marriage, 
a.d.  1376,  see  Murat.  Ann.  VIII.  ii. 
194,  199.  As  to  Otho,  Leibn.  ii.  47, 
seqq. 

1  Th.  Niem,  i.  6-8,  who  styles  Otho 
“  ille  quondam  pater  principum  et 
norma nobilium. ”  AN eapolitan diarist, 
however,  says  that  Otho  was  well  re¬ 
ceived,  but  was  provoked  by  the  pope’s 
refusal  to  let  him  be  crowned  (Murat, 
xxi.  1039).  Otho  is  said  to  have  revived 
the  old  joke  of  calling  Urban  Turban. 
(See  vol.  iv.  p.  372.)  Th.  Niem,  i.  8  ; 


cf.  Baluz.  i.  433. 

m  E.g-.,  Lett.  305-6,  370.  Dollinger, 
ii.  277  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  497.  She  is  said 
to  have  predicted  the  schism,  which 
she  ascribed  to  the  unwillingness  of  the 
clergy  to  endure  correction.  Raym. 
Capuan.  Vita  S.  Cath.  c.  286  (Acta 
SS.,  April  30)  ;  cf.  cc.  287,  333-4. 
n  Th.  Niem,  i.  7. 

0  Baluz.  ii.  464 ;  Chron.  Rim.  in 
Murat,  xv.  919  ;  Theod.  Niem,  i.  7. 
p  Baluz.  ii.  464  ;  Th.de  Acerno,  727. 


20  6 


URBAN  VI.  AND  THE  CARDINALS. 


Book  VIII. 


of  death  ; q  and  on  the  9th  of  August,  after  having  cele¬ 
brated  a  solemn  mass,  they  sent  forth  a  letter  in  which 
they  renounced  him  as  an  apostate  and  a  deceiver — 
professing  to  have  chosen  him  in  the  trust  that,  as  a  man 
of  integrity  and  acquainted  with  the  canon  law,  he  would 
feel  himself  bound  to  regard  as  null  an  election  which  had 
been  made  under  constraint,  and  to  take  the  earliest  safe 
opportunity  of  declaring  its  nullity/ 

Yet,  although  the  election  had  unquestionably  been 
influenced  by  fear  of  the  Roman  populace, — although 
the  cardinals,  if  they  had  been  free,  would  probably  have 
chosen  otherwise, — their  choice  of  Urban  had  really  been 
rather  a  compromise  than  a  compliance  with  the  will  of 
the  multitude,  who  had  cried  out  for  one  of  their  own 
fellow-citizens,  and,  far  from  wishing  for  the  archbishop 
of  Bari,  had  been  eager  to  enthrone  the  cardinal  of  St. 
Peter’s.s  And,  whatever  might  have  been  the  original 
defects  in  Urban’s  title,  the  cardinals  appear  to  have 
debarred  themselves  from  insisting  on  these.  They  had, 
it  would  seem,  gone  through  a  second  form  of  election, 
in  order  to  make  the  matter  sure;1  they  had  accepted 
him  after  the  restoration  of  peace  in  the  city ;  they  had 
with  apparent  willingness  taken  part  in  all  the  forms 
which  were  necessary  in  order  to  put  him  completely 
into  possession  of  the  papacy ;  they  had  announced  his 
elevation  to  the  Avignon  cardinals  and  to  the  sovereigns 
of  Christendom  as  having  been  made  in  due  form,  and 
even  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.11  They 

<1  Bui.  iv.  587;  Hefele,  vi.  667.  t.  vii.  They  afterwards  said  that  Urban 

r  Baluz.  i.  450,  465-72  ;  ii.  831  ;  had  forced  them  to  this,  and  that  their 
Dacher.  Spicil.  i.  764  ;  see  Hefele,  vi.  continued  insecurity  made  them  submit 
656.  For  an  earlier  declaration  (Aug.  to  him  (Baluz.  ii.  931 ;  Th.  Vrie,  in 
2)  see  Baluz.  ii.  822,  and  cf.  Bui.  iv.  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  41);  but  their  whole 
467.  proceedings  are  inconsistent  with  the 

»  See  Baluz.  i.  544 ;  and  a  letter  of  assertion  (Dolling,  ii.  277).  Cardinal 
1407  in  Murat.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  749.  Zabarella  speaks  of  their  “longa,  dis- 

1  See  Hefele,  vi.  657.  simulata,  tardaqueallegatiosui  metus.” 

n  See  Baldus  in  Append,  to  Rayn.  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  511. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1378.  THE  CARDINALS  AT  FONDI. 


207 


had  assisted  at  his  celebration  of  the  most  solemn  rites. 
They  had  solicited  and  received  preferment  at  his  hands, 
for  themselves  or  their  friends,  even  since  their  withdrawal 
to  Anagni.x  In  all  possible  ways  they  had  acknowledged 
him,  until  driven  by  his  outrageous  behaviour  to  seek 
for  pretexts  which  might  warrant  them  in  forsaking  and 
superseding  him.y 

The  cardinals  now  hired  a  band  of  Breton  and  Gascon 
soldiers  to  protect  them.2  They  got  possession  of  the 
papal  jewels  and  insignia,  which  had  been  deposited 
in  the  castle  of  St.  Angelo.a  They  entered  into  an 
understanding  with  the  queen  of  Naples,  and 
removed  from  Anagni  to  Fondi,  within  the 
Neapolitan  territory,  where  the  count  of  the  place,  a 
turbulent  man  of  the  Gaetani  family,  who  had  long  held 
the  government  of  Campania  under  the  Roman  church, 
was  induced  by  his  enmity  against  Urban  to  support 
them.b  They  persuaded  three  out  of  the  four  Italian 
cardinals  to  join  them — it  is  said,  by  holding  out  to  each 
the  hope  of  being  chosen  as  pope.0  They  endeavoured 
to  fortify  their  cause  by  procuring  the  opinions  of  emi¬ 
nent  lawyers  ;  but  in  this  their  success  was  imperfect,  as 
the  jurists  in  general  held  that  the  election  of  Urban 
had  been  regular,  or  that,  if  it  were  not  so,  the  power 
of  amending  it  belonged,  not  to  the  cardinals,  but  to 
a  general  council.4 


x  Th.  de  Acerno,  724 ;  Pileus  de 
Prata,  in  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  745  ;  Gobel. 
Pers.  294. 

y  Planck,  v.  319-23 ;  Hefele,  vi.  644, 
659-60.  “  This,”  says  Mr.  Hallam, 

“opens  a  delicate  question  in  juris¬ 
prudence  :  namely,  under  what  cir¬ 
cumstances  acts,  not  only  irregular, 
but  substantially  invalid,  are  capable 
of  receiving  a  retro-active  confirmation 
by  the  acquiescence  and  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  parties  concerned  to  oppose 
them”  (Middle  Ages,  ii.  39).  Cut  the 


final  criterion  in  all  questions  of  papal 
legitimacy  had  been  that  of  general 
acknowledgment  by  the  church ;  so 
that,  if  no  objection  had  been  raised 
against  Urban  in  his  own  time,  he 
would  have  been  an  undisputed  pope 
for  ever.  z  Froiss.  vii.  194. 

a  Urban  in  Mansi,  xxvi.  612. 
b  Baluz.  i.  477  ;  Th.  Niem,  ii.  7  ; 
Giorn.  Napol.  in  Murat,  xxi.  1039 ; 
Sism.  v.  189 ;  Hefele,  vi.  670. 
c  Theod.  Niem,  i.  9. 
d  Rayn.  1378.  30-9 ;  Append,  to  vol. 


208 


CLEMENT  VII.,  ANTIPOPE. 


Book  VIII. 


The  aged  cardinal  of  St.  Peter’s  was  the  only  member 
of  the  college  who  still  adhered  to  Urban  ;  but  he  did 
hot  long  survive.0  Urban  now  announced  an  intention 
of  creating  nine  cardinals ;  but  in  the  Ember-week  ot 
September  he  proceeded  to  bestow  the  dignity  at  once 
on  twenty-nine  persons — a  number  which  exceeded  that 
of  the  French  and  the  Italians  together. 
p  ‘  '  Many  of  these  were  Neapolitans  like  him¬ 

self,  and  recommended  by  powerful  family  'connexions, 
or  by  other  circumstances  which  might  enable  them 
to  exercise  an  influence  in  his  favour  among  their 
countrymen/ 

On  the  20th  of  the  same  month,  the  rebellious  cardinals 
at  Fondi  renewed  their  declarations  against  Urban,  and, 
although  the  Italian  members  of  the  college  withdrew 
before  the  election,  chose  as  pope  Robert  of  Geneva, 
cardinal  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  and  bishop  of  Cambray, 
who  took  the  name  of  Clement  VII. g  The  antipope, 
who  was  recommended  to  them  by  his  enterprising  spirit, 
as  well  as  by  his  birth — which  connected  him  with  almost 
all  the  chief  princes  of  Europe — was  only  thirty-six  years 
of  age.  His  qualities  were  rather  those  of  a  warrior  than 
of  a  prelate ;  he  had  been  the  leader  of  a  company  of 
Breton  mercenaries,  and  had  been  deeply  concerned  in 
the  massacre  of  Cesena,  and  in  other  barbarities  by  which 


vii.  (for  John  of  Lignano  and  Baldo); 
Dolling,  ii.  278.  The  famous  Baldo, 
of  Perugia,  gave  an  opinion  favourable 
to  Urban  (Mansi  in  Rayn.  t.  vii.  321  ; 
Append,  ib.  613),  but  is  commonly 
said  to  have  afterwards  gone  over  to 
the  other  side.  (Giesel.  iii.  134  ;  Milm. 

v.  404.)  Savigny,  however,  denies  this 
change,  and  says  that  a  second  opinion, 
two  years  later,  agreed  with  the  first. 

vi.  207-9. 

e  He  died  on  the  7th  of  September. 
Hefele,  vi.  671. 

1  Some  make  the  number  26  or  27. 


See  Baluz.  i.  478  ;  Theod.  Niem,  i.  12  ; 
N.  Donati  in  Murat,  xv.  261 ;  Chron. 
Est.  ib.  503 ;  Annal  Mediol.  ib.  xv. 
770-1  ;  Chron.  Rimin.  xv.  9-20.  Among 
the  new  cardinals  was  one  Englishman, 
Adam  Easton  (Godwin,  793).  Some  of 
them  soon  dropped  the  title  (Baluz.  i. 
4S9).  St.  Catharine,  although  she  is 
said  to  have  suggested  the  creation  of 
these  cardinals  (Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii. 
xv.),  speaks  unfavourably  of  some  of 
them.  Lett.  364. 
s  Baluz.  i.  477-8. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1378-9. 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM. 


209 


the  late  contests  of  Italy  had  been  stained.11  The  election 

of  Clement  was  accepted  by  the  cardinals  of  Avignon  ;l 

and  thus  was  begun  the  great  schism  of  the  west,  which 

for  nearly  forty  years  distracted  Latin  Christendom, 

between  rivals  who  hurled  against  each  other  the  spiritual 

weapons  of  excommunication  and  anathema, k  while  each 

loaded  the  other  with  charges  of  the  worst  of  crimes. 

France  declared  for  Clement,  although  not  until  1379, 

when  Charles  V.  requested  the  university  of,, 

.  .  .  .  ,  .  .  May  22,  1379. 

Paris  to  give  a  judgment  on  the  question. 

The  faculties  of  theology,  law,  and  medicine,  with  the 
French  and  Norman  nations  in  the  department  of  arts, 
pronounced  in  favour  of  Clement,  and  the  neutrality  of 
the  English  and  Picard  nations  of  “  artists  ”  was  over¬ 
powered.1  England  was  on  the  side  of  Urban,  because 
France  was  with  Clement;  and  Scotland  was  for  Clement, 
because  England  was  with  Urban.111  Germany  and 
Bohemia,11  Hungary,  Poland,  and  Portugal,  tired  of  the 
long  series  of  French  popes,  were  in  favour  of  Urban; 
so,  too,  was  all  Italy  except  the  Neapolitan  kingdom, 
which  he  had  alienated  by  his  behaviour  to  queen 


b  Baluz.  i.  488,  1084-5;  ii.  837  ;  Cron, 
di  Bologna  in  Murat,  xviii.  505,  510  ; 
Urban  in  Mansi,  xxvi.  61 1 ;  Antonin. 
382.  “  Giovane  uomo,  e  bello  di  sua 
persona,  salvo  che  era  alquanto  zoppo 
e  un  poco  guercio.”  (Chron.  Rim.  in 
Murat,  xv.  920 ;  cf.  Chron.  Est.  503.) 
He  took  great  pains  to  conceal  his 
lameness.  Th.  Niem,  ii.  1. 

Baluz.  ii.  845-7. 

k  lb.  i.  496  ;  Urb.  in  Rayn.  1378. 
103-11,  etc. 

1  Bui.  iv.  566.  The  French  king 
allowed  the  English  nation  in  the  uni¬ 
versity  to  acknowledge  the  pope  who 
was  owned  in  England  (Bui.  v.  65 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  134).  See  decrees  of  the 
university  of  Paris  in  favour  of  Clement 
n  Baluz.  ii..  Nos.  220-1  ;  Wilkins,  iii. 
138  ;  and  see  the  invective  against  the 
French  king  for  taking  part  with  Cle¬ 


ment,  in  Walsingh.  i.  393.  The  abbot 
of  Ciceaux  was  for  Clement,  and  the 
popes  of  the  Roman  line  found  them¬ 
selves  obliged  to  devise  means  for 
holding  the  general  chapters  of  the 
order,  and  keeping  up  discipline  in  it. 
See  Rymer,  vii.  523  ;  Chron.  Mels.  iii. 
258,  266. 

m  See  Edward  III.’s  letter  in  Baluz. 
i.  557.  The  marriage  of  Richard  II. 
with  Anne  of  Bohemia  had  also  a  share 
in  determining  the  policy  of  England. 
(Th.  Niem,  i.  17.)  Richard,  in  1379, 
granted  to  the  pope  two-thirds  of  the 
income  of  benefices  held  in  England  by 
the  rebel  cardinals,  the  remaining  third 
being  retained  for  repairs,  etc.  Ryrn. 
vii.  222. 

n  See  Baluz.  i.  557  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi. 
259;  Palacky,  III.  1. 


VOL.  VII. 


14 


210 


STATE  OF  EUROPE 


Book  VIII. 


Joanna’s  husband,  and  by  showing  an  inclination  to 
favour  the  pretensions  of  Charles  of  Durazzo  as  a  rival 
claimant  of  her  throne,0  Castile  and  Aragon  were 
brought,  after  some  delay,  to  declare  for  Clement — in 
great  measure  through  the  skilful  negotiations  of  his 
legate,  cardinal  Peter  de  Luna.P 

Within  a  short  time  after  the  beginning  of  the  schism, 
changes  occurred  by  which  the  chief  thrones  of  Europe 
were  transferred  from  experienced  sovereigns  to  princes 
whom  a  writer  of  the  time  describes  in  general  as 
voluptuous  youths, q  and  whose  authority  was  not  such 
Sept.  1 6,  as  to  exercise  much  influence  in  the  question. 

I3^°-  In  France,  Charles  V.,  a  king  distinguished 
for  his  prudence  and  for  his  love  of  learning  and  the  arts,r 
was  succeeded  by  his  son  Charles  VI.,  a  boy  of  fourteen, 
who  from  his  early  manhood  became  subject  to  fits  of 
lunacy,  in  consequence  of  which  the  kingdom  fell  a  prey 
to  the  rivalries  of  the  princes  of  the  blood.s  In  England, 
Edward  III.  had  been  succeeded  in  1377  by  the  young 
and  feeble  Richard  II.  In  Germany  and  Bohemia, 
Charles  IV.  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Wen- 


Nov.  1378. 


ceslaus,  whose  slender  capacity  was  obscured 


0  Froiss.  vii.  5-7  ;  x.  35-6 ;  Gobel. 
Pers.  297 ;  Baluz.  i.  472.  Theodoric 
of  Niem  says  that  Joanna  joined  Cle¬ 
ment  against  her  husband’s  will.  i.  17. 

p  Martene,  Thes.  ii.  1083-98  ;  Coll. 
Ampl.  vii.  xx.  See  Baluz.  i.  493,  502-3, 
517-19,  1283  ;  ii.  920-8  ;  Mansi,  xxvi. 
659,  684,  733  ;  Mariana,  1.  xviii.  4  ;  etc. 
John  of  Aragon,  in  giving  his  adhesion 
to  Clement,  Feb.  24,  1387,  says  that  he 
had  been  restrained  from  publicly  doing 
so  while  his  father  lived.  Baluz.  Col¬ 
lect.  No.  227. 

Th.  Niem,  i.  18.  In  the  letter  of 
advice  addressed  by  the  count  palatine 
Rupert  to  Wenceslaus,  when  about  to 
go  to  a  conference  at  Reims  (see  below, 
p.  234),  it  is  said  that,  as  Charles  was 


a  widower,  the  cardinals  offered  him 
the  papacy.  Martene,  Thes.  ii.  1174. 

r  Sism.  xi.  3,  seqq. ;  Martin,  v.  239 
242-3,  299,  300  ;  Hallam,  i.  6r.  See 
the  “  Livre  des  Fais  et  bonnes  Mceurs 
du  sage  roy  Charles  V.,"  by  Christine 
de  Pisan,  in  Petitot,  v.,  vi. 

8  Martin,  v.  434,  441  ;  Hallam,  i.  61, 
66.  These  fits  began  in  1392.  (Mon. 
Sandionys.  1.  xiv.  5 ;  Juv.  des  Ursins, 
91.)  “Et  n’y  trouvoit  on  remede  si 
non  prier  Dieu.  Et  estoit  belle  chose 
et  piteuse  des  devotions  qu’avoient 
toutes  gens  ;  et  faisoit-on  aumosnes  k 
eglises,  hoslels-Dieu,  et  pauvres  gens” 
(Juv.  des  Ursins,  117).  For  the  mise¬ 
ries  of  France,  see  Nic.  de  Clemangiis, 
‘De  Lapsu  et  Reparatione  Justitiae.’ 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1378-80.  DURING  THE  GREAT  SCHISM. 


21 1 


by  continual  debauchery/  Nor,  while  the  power  of 
sovereigns  was  thus  ineffective,  was  there  any  predomi¬ 
nant  saint  who,  like  Bernard  in  an  earlier  age,  could, 
by  throwing  his  influence  into  the  scale  of  one  of  the 
claimants  of  the  papacy,  have  made  the  other  to  be 
generally  regarded  as  an  antipope.  On  each  side  there 
were  saints  and  prophets  whom  their  contemporaries 
regarded  with  veneration  :  while  Urban  had  with  him 
Catharine  of  Siena, u  Catharine  of  Sweden, x  and  the  royal 
friar-prophet,  Peter  of  Aragon/  Clement  was  supported 


1  “  Ineptus,  probrosus,  saevitia  etig- 
navia  infamis”  (Avent.  640)  ;  “Volup- 
tatum  sequax  et  labores  refugiens,  vini 
quam  prorsus  regni  curiosior”  (.En. 
Sylv.  Hist.  Bohem.  c.  34).  Cf.  Andr. 
Ratisb.  in  Pez,  IV.  iii.  591-3 ;  Palacky, 
III.  12,  67-9.  The  Jesuit  biographer 
of  St.  John  of  Nepomuk  says  : — “  Qui 
cum  princeps  esset  ignavissimus  idem- 
que  in  luto  sanguine  macerato  sederet, 
i.e.,  libidinose  et  crudeliter  regnaret, 
etc.”  (Acta  SS.,  Mai.  16,  p.  668.)  As 
to  this  very  popular  saint,  see  Pres- 
sel  in  Herzog,  art.  Joh.  v.  Nepomuk, 
and  Hefele,  vi.  694.  The  only  foun¬ 
dation  for  the  common  story  appears 
to  be  that  Wenceslaus  is  said  to  have 
caused  John  of  Pomuk,  doctor  of 
canon  law  and  vicar-general  of  the 
archbishop  of  Prague,  to  be  tortured 
and  afterwards  thrown  into  the  Mol- 
dau.  (Andr.  Ratisb.  in  Pez,  IV. 
iii.  592.)  This  John,  however,  seems 
really  to  have  suffered  for  being  a  par¬ 
tisan  of  the  archbishop,  with  whom 
Wenceslaus  had  quarrelled  ;  and  the 
circumstances  of  the  legend  of  St  John 
of  Nepomuk, — that  he  suffered  for  re¬ 
fusing  to  disclose  to  Wenceslaus  the 
queen’s  confession,  etc.,— are  imagi¬ 
nary.  Moreover,  the  date  of  the  saint’s 
supposed  martyrdom  is  placed  in  1483, 
whereas  that  of  the  vicar-general’s 
death  was  ten  years  later.  Dr.  Pressel 
states  the  various  theories  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  legend,  and  is  inclined  to 
think,  with  Otto  Abel  (whose  book  was 


published  at  Berlin  in  1855),  that  it 
was  got  up  by  the  Jesuits  after  the 
triumph  of  Romanism  in  Bohemia  in 
the  thirty  years’  war,  with  the  view  of 
supplying  a  national  hero  in  opposition 
to  John  Hus.  It  is  said  that  many 
statues,  etc.,  which  bear  the  name  of 
St.  John  Nepomuk  were  originally 
meant  for  Hus  (Pressel,  752).  In 
favour  of  the  story,  see  Mansi  in  Rayn. 
t.  viii.  74.  [An  interesting  essay  on 
the  subject  has  been  lately  published 
by  the  Rev.  A.  H.  Wratislaw  (Lond., 
1873),  who  gives  Dr.  Palacky’s  autho¬ 
rity  for  believing  the  saint  to  be  merely 
legendary,  although  the  historian  had 
been  restrained  by  fear  of  the  Austrian 
censorship  from  speaking  clearly  when 
engaged  on  the  story  of  the  period, 
many  years  ago.  pp.  76-7.] 

n  See  above,  p.  194 ;  also  later  letters, 
310,  312,  313,  350,  351,  357,  362,  368, 
etc. ;  Rayn.  1379.  22,  55,  59,  etc. ;  Hase, 

*  Cat.  v.  Siena,’  236.  She  died  April 
29,  1380. 

x  St.  Catharine  of  Sweden  died  in 
1381.  (Acta  SS.,  Mart.  24;  Rayn. 
1381.  45.)  See  her  evidence  as  to  the 
election.  (Ib.  1379.  28.)  Her  mother, 
St.  Bridget,  is  said  to  have  foretold 
the  schism.  Ib.  8. 

y  See  above,  p.  186  ;  Wadd.  1380. 
36-7 ;  Bui.  iv.  581  ;  Mansi,  xxvi.  657. 
In  Pez,  ii.  507,  seqq.,  is  a  treatise  by 
Henry  of  Hesse  against  a  hermit  named 
Telesphorus,  who  professed  to  have 
had  a  vision  directing  him  to  the  hoc  s 


212 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM. 


Book  VIII. 


by  the  great  Spanish  Dominican  preacher,  Vincent 
Ferrer,  and  by  a  prince  of  Luxemburg,  Peter,  bishop  of 
Metz  and  cardinal,  who,  although  he  died  at  the  age  of 
eighteen  in  1387,  continued  after  death  to  throw  over 
the  cause  of  the  Avignon  popes  the  lustre  of  innumerable 
miracles.2  Nor  has  the  question  as  to  the  legitimacy  of 
the  two  popes,  and  of  the  lines  founded  by  them  re¬ 
spectively,  been  ever  decided  by  any  authority  wThich 
is  regarded  as  final.  It  was  carefully  avoided  by  the 
councils  which  were  assembled  with  a  view  to  healing 
the  schism ;  and  in  later  times,  while  writers  of  the 
Roman  communion  in  general  have  been  in  favour  of 
the  Italian  popes, a  the  Gallicans  have  maintained  the 
title  of  the  French  line.b  As  to  the  practical  question 
of  communion  with  the  popes  of  one  or  the  other  party, 
the  judgment  of  St.  Antoninus  of  Florence  appears  to 
be  commonly  accepted — that,  while  Christians  in  general 
are  not  bound  to  have  such  knowledge  of  canon  law  as 
would  qualify  them  to  judge  of  the  elections,  they  are 
safe  in  following  those  who  are  set  over  them  in  the 
church.0 


of  Cyril  and  Joachim  (c.  9).  Henry 
says  that  many  persons  had  taken 
occasion  from  the  schism  to  set  up  for 
prophets,  and  to  utter  oracles  which 
were  soon  falsified  by  time  (cc.  6-8). 
These  prophets  had  said  that  the  schism 
would  be  ended  in  1393  by  the  slaying 
of  the  pseudo-pope  [i.e.  Urban]  at 
Perugia  (c.  25).  It  appears  to  be  un¬ 
certain  who  was  meant  under  the  name 
of  Cyril,  c.  12. 

z  Peter  d’Ailly,  when  sent  to  Avig¬ 
non  in  1389,  to  urge  in  the  name  of  the 
king,  the  university,  and  the  church  of 
Paris,  the  canonization  of  this  young 
saint,  stated  that  2128  miracles  were 
already  recorded  as  having  been  done 
by  him,  and  that  among  them  were  73 
raisings  of  the  dead !  See  Bui.  iv. 
655,  666,  etc.;  Mon.  Sandion.  t.  L 


p.  478  ;  Juv.  des  Ursins,  61  ;  Mart. 
Coll.  Ampl.  VII.  Praef.  xxix. ;  viiL  815; 
Ciacon.  ii.  684;  Acta  SS.,  Jul.  2,  pp. 
428,  seqq. ;  Hard.  viii.  1615.  After 
many  delays  Peter  was  beatified  by 
Clement  VII.  in  1527.  Acta  SS.  433. 

a  E.g.,  Rayn,  1409.  8.  The  names 
of  Clement  VII.  and  Benedict  XIII., 
which  were  assumed  by  Avignon  popes, 
have  since  been  repeated  in  the  un¬ 
doubted  series  (Giesel.  II.  iii.  136). 
On  the  other  hand,  Alexander  V.,  the 
pope  chosen  by  the  council  of  Pisa, 
seems  to  be  acknowledged  by  the 
numbering  of  the  next  Alexander  as 
the  Vlth.  But  Rinaldi  makes  light 
of  this.  1409.  80. 
b  Schrockh,  xxxi.  252-6. 
c  Antonin.  390 ;  Schrockh,  xxxi. 
352.  See  Giannone,  iv.  118-19 


Chap.  V.  a. d.  1378-80.  URBAN  VI.  AND  CLEMENT  VII. 


213 


Soon  after  his  election  Clement  proceeded  to  Naples, 
where  he  was  received  with  great  honour  by  the  queen. d 
But  the  people  were  on  the  side  of  Urban,  as  being  their 
countryman,  and  he  had  strengthened  his  interest  by 
including  several  Neapolitans  in  his  late  creation  of 
cardinals.®  Cries  of  “Death  to  the  antipope  and  the 
queen  !  ”  were  raised  in  the  streets  ;f  and  Clement,  after 
a  time,  found  it  expedient  to  make  his  way  by  Marseilles 
to  Avignon,  where  he  settled  under  the  protection  of  the 
king  of  France,  and  found  himself  obliged  to  endure  the 
miseries  of  a  dependent  position.5 

In  the  meantime  Urban  was  successful  in  Italy.  A 
mercenary  force  which  he  engaged,  under  a  native  cap¬ 
tain,  Alberic  of  Barbiano,  defeated  and  broke  up  the 
Breton  and  Gascon  bands  which  were  in  the  pay  of  the 
opposite  party.h  The  castle  of  St.  Angelo,  which  had 
been  held  for  the  cardinals,  was  now  for  the  first  time 
assailed  by  artillery,  and  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  Romans,  who  dismantled  it  and  bar-  Apiil  29’ 
barously  mutilated  it  by  pulling  down  a  large  part  of  the 
marble  facing,  and  employing  the  stones  in  paving  the 
streets.1 


Urban  was  resolved  to  make  Joanna  feel  the  weight  of 


his  enmity.  He  stirred  up 

d  Baluz.  i.  494. 

®  Cardinal  de  Gifuni,  who  had  re¬ 
ceived  his  hat  from  Clement,  burnt  it 
and  his  robes  publicly  at  Naples,  as 
having  been  given  by  a  pretender. 
Giorn.  Nap.  in  Murat,  xxi.  1044. 

f  Cron.  Bologn.  in  Murat,  xviii.  520  ; 
N.  Donat.  263. 

s  Baluz.  i.  494-5.  “  Quid  Clemente 

nostro,  dum  advixit,  miserabilius  ?  qui 
ita  se  servum  servorum  Gallicis  princi- 
pibus  addiceret  ut  vix  minas  et  con- 
tumelias  quse  illi  quotidie  ab  aulicis 
inferebantur,  deceret  in  vilissimum 
mancipium  dici.  Cedebat  illi  furori, 
cedebat  tempori,  cedebat  flagitantium 


Charles  of  Durazzo,  the  last 

importunitati,  fingebat,  dissimulabat, 
largiter  promittebat,  diem  ex  die  duce- 
bat,  his  beneficia  dabat,  illis  verba ; 
omnibus  quos  aut  ars  assentatoria  aut 
ludicra  in  curiis  acceptos  fecerat  sum- 
mopere  placere  studebat,  eosque  bene- 
ficiis  promereri  quo  talium  patrocinio 
dominorum  gratiam  et  favorem  asse- 
queretur,”  etc.  De  Ruina  Eccles.,  c. 
42,  in  Von  der  Hardt,  I.  iii.  46. 

h  N.  Don.  263  ;  Sism.  v.  213. 

5  Benven.  Imol.  in  Murat.  Antiq, 
Ital.  i.  1070  ;  Walsingh.  i.  396 ;  Froiss. 
vii.  199  ;Theod.  Niem,  i.  20  ;  Gregorov. 
vi.  504-5.  Boniface  IX.  repaired  the 
damage  with  brick.  Th.  Niem,  1.  c. 


214 


AFFAIRS  OF  NAPLES. 


Book  VIII. 


representative  of  the  Angevine  dynasty,  to  make  an 
attempt  on  the  Apulian  crown,  instead  of  waiting  until 
the  course  of  nature  should  give  it  to  him.  The  enterprise 
was  favoured  by  the  oracular  utterances  of  St.  Catharine 
of  Siena, k  and  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  expenses  of 
it,  Urban  sold  the  plate,  the  jewels,  and  other  precious 
ornaments  of  churches,  and  even  alienated  ecclesiastical 
property  without  regard  to  the  will  of  the  incumbents.1 
In  April  1380  he  pronounced  Joanna,  as  a  heretic  and 
schismatic,  to  be  deprived  of  her  kingdom  and  of  all 
fiefs  held  under  the  Roman  see,  released  her  subjects 
from  their  allegiance,  and  proclaimed  a  crusade  against 
her.ra  Charles  was  received  at  Rome  with 
June  1,  ijSi.  great  honour,  was  anointed  as  king  of  Sicily, 

and  was  invested  in  the  dominion  of  all  southern  Italy, 
except  the  papal  city  of  Benevento,  with  Capua,  Amalfi, 
and  other  places,  which  Urban  wished  to  form  into  a 
principality  for  his  nephew,  Francis  Prignano.11  On  the 
other  hand,  Joanna  resolved  to  call  in  to  her  assistance 
Lewis,  duke  of  Anjou,  a  prince  of  warlike 
character,  whom  she  adopted  as  her  heir; 
and  the  Avignon  pope  not  only  sanctioned  this,0  but  pro¬ 
fessed  to  bestow  on  Lewis  a  portion  of  the  papal  states, 
which  was  to  be  styled  the  kingdom  of  Adria,  on  con¬ 
dition  that  neither  he  nor  his  successors  should  accept 
an  election  to  the  German  crown,  or  to  the  lordship  of 
Lombardy.?  The  gift  was  one  which  cost  Clement 


June  29,  13S0. 


k  Rayn.  1380. 5  ;  Giannone,  iv.  108  ; 
Catharine  had  in  vain  admonished  the 
queen.  Lett.  312,  317,  348,  etc. 

1  Theod.  Niem,  i.  22 ;  Milman,  from 
MS.  Brit.  Mus.  v.  41 1. 
m  Th.  Niem,  i.  19  ;  Rayn.  1380.  2. 

“  There  were  certain  conditions,  by 
failure  as  to  which  the  kingdom  was  to 
revert  to  the  Roman  see ;  e.g,  that  it 
should  not  be  in  the  same  hands  with 
the  empire,  that  tribute  should  be  paid. 


etc.  (Rayn.  1381.  3-23).  Theodoric 
of  Niem  says  that  Urban  intended  to 
make  his  nephew  king  of  Trinacria. 
i.  8. 

0  Mart.  Thes.  i.  1380  ;  Baluz.  i.  501 ; 

Antonin.  399. 

p  The  bull  is  in  Dachery,  iil  746. 
See  Giann.  iv.  no  ;  and  for  the  honours 
paid  to  Lewis  at  Avignon,  Mon.  San* 
dion.  i.  160  ;  Juv.  des  Ursins,  22. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1380-4. 


DEATH  OF  JOANNA  I. 


2I5 


nothing,  as  the  papal  territory  was  in  the  hands  of  his 
rival,  and  there  was  a  hope  that,  by  professing  to  give  a 
part,  he  might  gain  the  assistance  of  Lewis  towards  the 
acquisition  of  the  rest.'*  But  the  plan  failed.  While 
Lewis  remained  in  France,  busily  engaged  in  securing 
the  inheritance  which  had  fallen  to  him  by  his  brother’s 
death/  Charles  invaded  southern  Italy.3  Otho,  although 
distinguished  for  his  military  skill,  was  without  money, 
and  was  unsupported  by  the  people,  who  had  been  irri¬ 
tated  by  the  demand  of  a  heavy  war-tax  •  ^ 

and  Charles,  after  having  defeated  him  at  San 
Germano/  got  possession  of  Naples.  The  queen  was  com¬ 
pelled  to  surrender  herself  to  the  victor,  and  Aucr  26 
it  is  commonly  believed  that  by  his  command 
she  was  smothered  or  strangled  in  prison. u  May’  1^2’ 
Her  death  and  the  manner  of  it  are  said  to  have  been 
determined  by  the  advice  of  king  Lewis  of  Hungary, 
who  thus  avenged,  even  in  its  very  circumstances,  the 
murder  of  his  brother  Andrew.*  When  at  length  Lewis 
of  Anjou  was  able  to  enter  Italy  at  the  head  of  a  powerful 
and  brilliant  army,?  he  found  that  the  policy  of  Charles 
had  raised  up  difficulties  which  beset  him  in  his  passage 
through  Lombardy.2  His  troops  suffered  severely  from 
the  want  of  provisions  and  from  the  inclemency  of  the 
weather,  while  Charles  declined  meeting  him  in  the  field, 


Schrockh,  xxxi.  267. 
r  Schwab,  117. 

8  Giorn.  Napol.  1041  ;  Giann.  iv. 
hi. 

1  It  was  supposed  that  the  victory 
was  gained  by  the  help  of  sorcery. 
Theod.  Niem,  i.  24. 

u  Baluz.  i.  501,  506 ;  N.  Donati  in 
Murat,  xv.  274.  ‘  There  are  various  ac¬ 
counts  of  Joanna’s  death.  (See  Gobel. 
Pers.  298;  Giann.  iv.  115-16;  Murat. 
Ann.  VIII.  ii.  231,  236  ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
514.)  The  Neapolitan  diarist,  in 
Murat,  xxi.  1045,  says  that  her  body 


was  publicly  displayed,  and  that  many 
persons  nevertheless  believed  her  to 
be  still  alive  ;  but  he  says  nothing  of 
violence.  According  to  Theodoric  of 
Niem,  she  was  strangled  when  at  her 
devotions  in  a  chapel  (i.  25).  As  to 
the  judgments  passed  on  her  character, 
see  Milman,  v.  413. 

x  “Nell’  istesso  modo.”  Giann.  iv. 
116. 

y  Froiss.  ix.  105,  125-7 ;  Gobel. 

299  ;  Giorn.  Nap.  1046. 
z  Juv.  des  Ursins,  22. 


2  I  6 


URBAN  VI.  AND 


Book  VIII. 


and  left  these  enemies  to  do  their  work,* — so  that  the 
soldiers,  according  to  the  expression  of  a  contemporary, 
Sept.  21,  “died  like  dogs,,,b  and  Lewis  himself  was 
U&U  carried  off  by  a  fever  at  Bari.c  His  force 
was  utterly  broken  up,  and  gallant  nobles,  who  had  accom¬ 
panied  him  in  full  confidence  of  victory, d  were  obliged 
to  beg  their  way  in  rags  back  to  France,  while  Charles 
remained  undisputed  sovereign  of  Naples.e 

To  Urban  it  seemed  that  the  new  king,  of  whose 
success  he  regarded  himself  as  the  author,  was  slow  in 
showing  the  expected  gratitude  for  his  support,  and 
especially  in  contributing  to  provide  a  territory  for  his 
nephew,  Francis  (who  was  commonly  called  Butillo).* 
He  therefore  resolved  to  go  in  person  to  Naples,  and 
when  his  cardinals  endeavoured  to  dissuade  him,  he  burst 
into  a  fury,  which  seemed  to  confirm  their  suspicions  of 
his  sanity,  and  threatened  to  depose  them.g  At  Aversa 

^  .  he  was  met  by  Charles,  who  received  him 

Oct  i '>8'?. 

0  with  a  show  of  honour,  and  acted  as  his 
esquire  ;h  but  both  at  Aversa  and  Naples  he  was  closely 
guarded,  from  fear  that  he  might  engage  in  political 
intrigues;1  and  when  this  restraint  was  about  to  be 
relaxed,  a  difficulty  was  caused  by  the  misconduct  of  the 
foolish  and  profligate  Butillo,  who  seduced  and  carried 
off  a  noble  and  beautiful  nun  of  the  order  of  St.  Clare. 


a  Mon.  Sandion.  i.  335-6 ;  Sism. 
Hist.  Fr.  xi.  447-9. 
b  Giorn.  Napol.  1047. 
c  Mon.  Sandion.  i.  336  ;  Giann.  iv. 
125-8.  His  will,  dated  Sept.  20,  is  in 
Martene,  Thes.  i.  1594,  seqq. 
lI  Mon.  Sandion.  i.  164. 
e  Baluz.  i.  505,  510 ;  Juv.  des  Urs. 
44  ;  Mon.  Sandion.  i.  338  ;  Antonin. 
391,  401  ;  Sism.  v.  267  ;  Martin,  v.  410- 
The  English  device  of  designating 
parties  by  red  and  white  roses  was 
anticipated  by  the  factions  of  southern 
Italy  at  this  time.  Gobel.  Pers.  304. 


f  Chron.  Regg.  in  Murat,  xviii.  91  ; 
Sism.  v.  268.  Theodoric  of  Niem  says 
that  Urban  would  even  have  made  his 
nephew  sultan  of  Babylon.  Nemus 
Unionis,  vi.  39. 

8  Th.  Niem,  i.  28  ;  Baluz.  i.  1270 ; 
Walsingh.  ii.  105,  121. 

h  “  Rex  vero  praecedens  pontiticem 
cgit  officium  scutiferi.”  Theod.  Niem, 
i.  29 ;  cf.  Giorn.  Napol.  1048. 

1  Th.  Niem,  i.  31-2 ;  Gobel.  Pers. 
299.  Walsingham  probably  exagge¬ 
rates  the  circumstances,  ii.  121. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1383-4.  CHARLES  OF  DURAZZO. 


217 


For  this  he  was  condemned  to  death  by  the  king’s  court 
of  justice ;  but  Urban  (who  usually  excused  his  nephew’s 
excesses  by  the  plea  of  youth,  although  Butillo  had 
reached  the  age  of  forty), k  declared  that  he  himself  was 
suzerain  of  the  Apulian  kingdom,  and  that  in  his  pre¬ 
sence  no  other  tribunal  had  jurisdiction  over  a  grandee.1 
Charles  was  unwilling  to  carry  matters  to  an  extremity, 
as  the  French  invasion  had  not  yet  passed  away.m  The 
cardinals,  therefore,  were  able  to  compound  the  dispute, 
by  arranging  that  Butillo  should  marry  a  lady 
related  to  the  king,  and  Urban  withdrew  ay  1  ’ 13  4‘ 
with  all  his  cardinals  to  Nocera.u 

During  his  stay  at  Naples,  Urban  had  deprived  all  such 
clergy  of  that  city  as  were  suspected  of  leaning  to  the 
opposite  interest,  and,  in  filling  up  the  vacancies,  he  had 
put  many  low  men  into  dignities  for  which  they  were 
grossly  unfit.  He  had  promoted  at  once  thirty-two 
Neapolitans  to  archbishopricks  and  bishopricks.0  He 
now  resolved  on  a  new  creation  of  cardinals,  among  whom 
he  wished  to  include  the  three  ecclesiastical  electors  of 
Germany ;  but  these  all  declined  to  bind  themselves  to 
his  fortunes  by  accepting  the  doubtful  honour. p  And 
when  he  offered  it  to  a  number  of  the  Neapolitan  clergy, 
he  had  the  double  mortification  of  finding  that  they  refused 
from  fear  of  offending  the  king,  and  that  the  cardinalate 
was  discredited  in  the  general  estimation  by  the  characters 
of  those  whom  he  had  thought  worthy  of  it.q 

Charles  invited  Urban  to  a  conference,  but  was  told  in 
answer  that  it  was  for  kings  to  wait  on  popes,  not  for 
popes  to  wait  on  kings ;  and  he  was  charged  to  relieve 
his  subjects  from  the  heavy  taxes  which  he  had  imposed 
on  them.  On  hearing  this  he  indignantly  exclaimed  that 

k  Th.  Niem,  i.  33.  cera  (cc.  38-40)  and  of  Naples  (ii.  22 

1  lb.  34.  m  Hefele,  vi.  683.  are  remarkable.  0  lb.  26. 

n  Giorn.  Nap.  1052  ;  Ttieod.  Niem,  v  Gobel.  Pers.  316. 

L  c.  Theodoric’s  descriptions  of  No-  ^  Theod.  Niem,  i.  44, 


2l8 


URBAN  AT  NOCERA. 


Book  VIII. 


the  kingdom  was  his  own, — that  the  pope  had  no  concern 
with  the  government  of  any  but  the  priests ;  and  that  he 
would  go  to  Urban,  but  at  the  head  of  an  army.r  For 
some  weeks  the  pope  was  besieged  in  Nocera,  where  he 
showed  himself  at  a  window  three  or  four  times  a-day, 
pronouncing  with  bell  and  lighted  candle  the  sentence  of 
excommunication  against  his  besiegers.8  He  even  talked 
of  deposing  Charles  in  punishment  for  his  ingratitude. 
The  old  man’s  perverseness,  self-will,  and  irritability 
became  intolerable  even  to  the  cardinals  of  his  own 
promotion ;  and  some  of  them  submitted  to  an  able,  but 
somewhat  unscrupulous,  lawyer,  Bartoline  of  Piacenza,1 
a  set  of  questions,  among  which  was  this — whether,  if  a 
pope  should  conduct  himself  in  such  a  way  as  to  endanger 
the  weal  of  Christendom  by  negligence,  obstinacy,  and 
engrossing  all  power,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  advice  of 
the  cardinals,  these  would  not  be  warranted  in  placing 
him  under  the  charge  of  curators.11  Bartoline  replied  in 
the  affirmative,  and  other  opinions  to  the  same  effect  were 
obtained,  although  some  of  those  who  were  consulted 
thought  otherwise.  Urban,  on  being  informed  of  this 
proceeding  by  a  cardinal  who  was  not  concerned  in  it, 
caused  six  of  the  cardinals  to  be  thrown  into 
0  >  a  dungeon  which  had  been  formerly  used  as 
a  cistern, x  and  after  a  time  brought  them  to  trial  before 
his  consistory.  By  the  application  of  torture,  they  were 
driven  to  confess  anything  that  was  required  ;  and  while 
Butillo  stood  by,  laughing  immoderately  at  their  agonies 
and  shrieks,  his  uncle  walked  up  and  down  in  the  adjoin¬ 
ing  garden,  calmly  reciting  his  canonical  hours  in  a  loud 

r  Giorn.  Napol.  1052.  u  lb.  St.  Antoninus  says  that  they 

8  lb.  1052  ;  Gobel.  Pers.  299  ;  An-  spoke  of  deposing  him  (402).  Gobelin 
tonin.  402 ;  Giann.  iv.  128-9.  Persona  says  that  they  had  a  scheme 

1  “  Audaci  et  ingenioso,  qui  solitus  for  bringing  him  to  trial,  and  burning 
erat  plerumque  defendere  iniquas  him  as  a  heretic.  300-1. 
causas  ut  quomodolibet  lucraretur.”  x  See  C.  Zantfliet  in  Murat.  Coll. 
Th.  Niem,  i.  42.  Ampl.  v.  326 ;  Walsingh.  ii.  122-3. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1384-5.  HIS  FLIGHT  TO  GENOA. 


219 


tone,  so  that  the  executioners  might  be  aware  of  his 
presence,  and  might  do  their  work  with  vigour,  y  The 
cardinals  were  then  remanded  to  their  prison,  where  they 
suffered  from  hunger  and  thirst,  from  darkness,  stench, 
and  vermin ;  one  of  them,  De  Sangro,  whose  place  of 
confinement  was  seen  by  Theodoric  of  Niem,  had  not 
room  to  stretch  himself  in  any  direction.2 

At  length  Urban,  for  whose  surrender  10,000  florins  had 
been  offered, a  was  rescued  from  his  uneasy  position  by 
Thomas  of  San  Severino,band  hurried,  with  his  prisoners, 
across  the  country  to  a  place  on  the  Adriatic  coast, 
between  Trani  and  Barletta,0  where  he  had  arranged  that 
a  Genoese  fleet  should  be  ready  to  receive  him.d  The 
bishop  of  Aquila,  who  was  unable  from  illness  to  ride  so 
fast  as  the  rest  of  the  party,  was  killed  on  the  way  by 
the  pope's  command.e  The  six  cardinals  were  carried  to 
Palermo,  and  thence  to  Genoa;*  and  there  five  of  them 
were  put  to  death,  with  circumstances  of  Sept.  14, 
mystery  which  have  given  rise  to  a  variety  of  1 385- 
reports — that  they  were  beheaded  in  prison,  that  they 
were  buried  alive,  or  that  they  were  put  into  sacks  and 
cast  into  the  sea.s  The  sixth,  Adam  Easton,  cardinal 
of  St.  Cecilia,  was  spared  at  the  intercession  of  his 
sovereign,  Richard  II.,  but  was  degraded  from  his 
dignity,  and  was  kept  in  rigorous  imprisonment  until 


y  Theod.  Niem,  i.  51-2.  Walsing- 
ham  says  that  they  were  afterwards 
brought  out  in  the  public  consistory, 
where  all  avowed  the  conspiracy  ex¬ 
cept  the  cardinal  of  England,  who 
admitted  only  that  he  had  complained, 
of  the  pope’s  pride,  ii.  124. 

2  Th.  Niem,  i.  43,  45,  50. 
a  Baluz.  Collectio  Nova,  225. 
b  Antonin.  391,  402. 
c  This  flight  is  fully  related  by  Gobe¬ 
lin  Persona,  who  joined  Urban  on  the 
way.  302-7. 

d  In  consideration  of  this  assistance. 


Urban  had  promised  a  gift  of  some 
lands,  which  Theodoric  questions  his 
right  to  alienate  (i.  53).  Gobelin  says 
that  the  ships  touched  at  Corneto,  and 
that  “  the  pope  gave  that  place  to  the 
Genoese.”  308. 

e  “  Sed  si  papa  potest  mandare  aut 
facere  aliquem  interfici  absque  irregu- 
laritatis  nota,  non  recolo  me  legisse.” 
Th.  Niem,  i.  56. 

f  G.  Stella  in  Murat,  xvii.  1127-8. 

g  See  Th.  Niem,  i.  60  ;  Gobel.  Pers. 
310;  Giorn.  Nap.  1052  ;  Vit.  I.  Clem. 
VII.  ap.  Baluz.  513 ;  Annal.  Janu- 


220 


MOVEMENTS  OF  URBAN  VI 


Book  VIII. 


after  the  death  of  Urban,11  by  whose  successor  he  was 
reinstated.  Two  other  cardinals,  alarmed  by  the  fate  of 
their  fellows,  made  their  way  from  Genoa  to  Avignon, 
where  they  were  admitted  into  the  rival  college  by 
Clement ; 1  one  of  them,  Pileo  de  Prata,  archbishop  of 
Ravenna,  having  publicly  burnt  his  official  hat  at  Pavia.k 

Within  little  more  than  a  year  after  his  arrival  at  Genoa, 
Urban  quarrelled  with  the  doge,  to  whom  he  had  been 
indebted  for  his  safety  ;  and  he  left  the  city  in  the  middle 
of  December  1386  for  Lucca.  There  he  was  urged  by 
envoys  from  the  princes  of  Germany  to  take  measures  for 
ending  the  schism  ;  but  he  answered  that  he  was  the  true 
pope,  and  could  not  throw  doubt  on  his  title.1  From 
Lucca  he  removed  to  Perugia,  but  he  was  compelled  to 
leave  that  place  by  the  scandal  which  had  been  occasioned 


enses,  in  Murat,  xvii.  1127;  Schrockh, 
xxxi.  274-5. 

h  Theod.  Niem,  i.  57  ;  Walsingh.  ii. 
197.  Easton  is  described  as  learned 
not  only  in  Greek,  but  in  Hebrew, 
and  as  a  voluminous  writer.  He  has 
been  styled  bishop  of  London  and  of 
Hereford,  but  wrongly.  I n  an  interces¬ 
sory  letter  from  the  Benedictines  of 
England,  whose  order  he  had  belonged 
to  (Letters  from  Northern  Registers, 
Chron.  and  Mem.  424),  he  is  styled 
“Quondam  cardinali  Norwycensi,” 
which  may  mean  that  he  was  born  at 
one  of  the  Eastons  in  the  diocese  of 
Norwich,  although  Bishop  Godwin 
doubtfully  refers  his  birth  to  Hereford. 
(Godwin,  793  ;  cf.  Ciacon.  ii.  648-9.) 

1  Baluz.  i.  515. 

k  Gobel.  Pers.  309 ;  see  Mansi  in 
Rayn.  t.  vii.  491.  There  is  a  letter 
from  Pileo  and  four  other  cardinals  to 
the  Roman  clergy,  of  date  1385,  in 
Baluz.  Coll.  Nova,  No.  226,  setting 
forth  Urban’s  misdeeds — “ut  videatur 
insano  similis  et  furenti,” — and  pro¬ 
mising  to  come  speedily  to  Rome,  and 
take  measures  for  healing  the  disorders 
of  the  church  by  a  general  council  or 


otherwise.  After  Urban’s  death,  Pileo 
was  sent  into  Italy  to  oppose  Boniface 
IX.,  but  went  over  to  him,  and,  from 
being  once  more  created  a  cardinal, 
was  styled  the  three-hatted.  “  Cardi- 
nalis  de  Tricapelli,  hoc  est,  trium  capel- 
lorum,  id  est,  a  tribus  capellatus,” 
says  one  of  Clement’s  partisans,  who 
adds,  “  Utinam  adhuc  exstans  sit  a 
quarto,  sic  tamen  quod  capellus  sibi 
tradatur  de  chalybe,  sere,  vel  ferro 
candenti,  ut  sic  extinguatur  ejus 
ambitio,  et  protervitas  confundatur” 
(Vita  I.  Clem.  524.  See  Baluz.  i.  1359  ; 
Antonin.  414;  Ciacon.  ii.  63).  The 
other  cardinal,  Galeotto  Tarlati,  of 
Pietra  Mala,  died  of  the  stone,  and 
thus  became  the  subject  of  an  epitaph 
by  Nicolas  of  Clemanges  : — 

“  Cui  Mala  Petra  dedit  nomen,  petra  mor- 
bida,  lsethum, 

Nunc  petra  dat  tumulum,  da,  petra  Christe, 
polum.” — Nic.  Ep.  xii.  p.  50. 

1  Th.  Niem,  i.  66.  While  at  Lucca 
he  forcibly  translated  Serafino,  bishop 
of  Reggio,  to  a  poorer  see,  in  punish¬ 
ment  of  misconduct,  which  is  remark¬ 
able  as  related  in  the  Reggio  Chronicle, 
Murat,  xviii.  95. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1383-8.  AFFAIRS  OF  HUNGARY. 


221 


by  his  nephew  Butillo’s  licentiousness,111  and  in  August 
1388  he  returned  to  Rome. 

Charles  of  Durazzo,  having  firmly  established  himself 
in  the  kingdom  of  Naples,  set  off,  in  compliance  with  an 
invitation  from  a  party  in  Hungary,  to  assert  his  claims 
to  the  throne  of  that  country,  where  Mary,  the  daughter 
of  king  Lewis,  notwithstanding  a  law  which  excluded 
females  from  the  crown,  had  been  chosen  “king”  on  her 
father’s  death  in  1382.11  Charles  had  sworn  that  he 
would  not  disturb  the  daughters  of  Lewis  in  their  inherit¬ 
ance  ;  but  Mary  was  persuaded  to  resign,  and  he  was 
solemnly  crowned  in  her  stead.  He  was  not,  however, 
long  allowed  to  enjoy  his  new  acquisition.  Through  the 
contrivance  of  the  late  king’s  widow  he  was  treacherously 
attacked  by  assassins,  and  he  died  of  his  wounds  soon 
after ;  when  the  Hungarian  crown  again  fell 
to  Mary,  who  had  been  betrothed  to  Sigis- 
mund,  son  of  the  emperor  Charles  IV.0  LTrban  made 
difficulties  as  to  allowing  Christian  burial  to  Charles,  and 
refused  to  invest  his  son  Ladislaus,  a  boy  only  ten  years 
old,  in  the  Neapolitan  kingdom  ; p  but  by  thus  indulging 
his  enmity  against  Charles  and  his  family,  he  encouraged 
the  interest  of  his  own  rival,  who  favoured  the  claims  of 
the  younger  Lewis  of  Anjou  to  the  Neapolitan  crown. 
The  kingdom  was  for  a  time  a  prey  to  anarchy,  while  the 
effect  of  the  schism  in  weakening  the  papacy  aided  the 
designs  of  John  Galeazzo  Visconti — a  deeply  politic  and 
utterly  unscrupulous  man,  who  had  deposed  and  poisoned 
his  uncle  Bernabo  q — to  gain  a  predominating 


Feb.  1386. 


influence  in  Italy/  Urban,  on  his  return  to 


a.d.  1383. 


Rome,  had  been  coldly  received,  and  he  afterwards  in- 


m  Th.  Nieiri,  i.  67.  For  Butillo’s  end, 
see  ib.  ii.  31.  n  Mailath.  i.  102-9. 

0  Cron.  Est.  in  Murat,  xv.  512  ; 
Rayn.  1386.  1 ;  Giann.  1.  xxiv.  c.  2  ; 
Mail.  i.  1 10-12  ;  Aschbach,  i.  31. 

P  Giorn.  Nap.  1053  ;  Giann.  iv.  139  ; 


Schrockh,  xxxi.  376. 

•i  Annal.  Mediol.  in  Murat,  xvi.  147  ; 
Cron.  Bologn.  ib.  xviii.  525;  Theod. 
Niem,  i.  57. 

r  See  Annal.  Mediol.  in  Murat,  xvi. 
788,  821-30,  etc.;  Sism.  R.  I.,  v.  292-3, 


222 


DEATH  OF  URBAN  VI. 


Book  VIII. 


Oct.  15,  1389. 


creased  his  unpopularity  with  the  citizens.  With  a  view 
at  once  of  conciliating  thems  and  of  bringing  money  into 
the  treasury  of  the  church,  he  announced  a  jubilee.  Out 
of  tenderness  (as  he  professed)  to  those  who  might  be  too 
severely  tried  by  the  interval  of  fifty  years  between  such 
solemnities,  the  time  was  to  be  reduced  to  thirty-three 
years,  the  length  of  the  Saviour’s  earthly  life ;  and  by  this 
calculation  he  determined  that  the  next  celebration  should 
fall  in  the  year  13 90.*  But  some  weeks  before  the 
beginning  of  that  year,  the  pope,  who  had  been  severely 
shaken  by  a  fall  from  his  mule,  died  ; u  and 
the  benefits  of  his  preparations  were  reaped 
by  his  successor. 

From  time  to  time  attempts  had  been  made  to  put  an 
end  to  the  schism.  Thus  in  1381  the  university  of  Paris, 
disgusted  by  Clement’s  proceedings,  gave  an  opinion 
that  a  general  council  should  be  called  for  this  purpose.* 
In  1387,  Clement,  feeling  himself  pressed  by  the  autho¬ 
rity  of  the  university,  professed  himself  willing  to  refer 
the  question  to  a  council,  aad  offered,  if  Urban  would 
submit  to  him,  to  give  him  the  highest  place  among  the 
cardinals.7  Urban  also  professed  his  readiness  to  submit 
to  a  council ;  but  he  added  a  condition  which  made  the 
offer  nugatory — that  he  himself  should  in  the  meantime 
be  acknowledged  as  the  only  pope.  Clement  is  said  to 


351-3.  Wenceslaus,  finding  that  he 
could  not  form  a  league  against  John 
Galeazzo,  gave  him  a  legitimate  title 
by  erecting  Milan  into  a  duchy,  which 
was  a  fief  of  the  empire,  A.D.  1395. 
(Th.  Niem,  ii.  25  ;  Antonin.  438.)  This 
affair  was  partly  negotiated  for  Ga¬ 
leazzo  by  Peter,  bishop  of  Vicenza, 
who  afterwards  became  Alexander  V. 
(Ann.  Mediol.  in  Murat,  xvi.  821.)  A 
funeral  sermon  on  the  duke,  by  an 
Austin  friar  (in  Murat,  xvi.  1038-50), 
is  a  remarkable  specimen  of  eulogy, 
and  there  is  a  curious  character  of  him 


by  the  Monk  of  St.  Denys,  I.  xxiv.  c. 
8.  He  used  to  say  that  a  maiden  might 

safely  carry  gold  in  her  hand  through¬ 
out  his  territories — he  himself  being 
the  only  robber  in  them.  Ib. 

8  Antonin.  404. 

1  J.  de  Mussis,  in  Murat,  xvi.  540; 
Th.  Niem,  i.  68  ;  Thom,  in  Twysd. 
2195.  The  bull  is  in  Andr.  Ratisb., 
ap.  Pez,  IV.  iii.  587. 
u  Th.  Niem,  i.  69  ;  Antonin.  404. 
x  Henr.  de  Hassia,  *  Concilium 
Paris,’  c.  13,  in  Gerson  Opp.  ii.  826. 
y  Bui.  iv.  6x8. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1389. 


BONIFACE  IX. 


223 


have  induced  persons  of  influence  in  the  French  court, 
by  frequent  and  costly  presents,  to  refrain  from  exerting 
themselves  for  the  closing  of  the  schism  ;z  and,  as  the 
princes  of  Latin  Christendom  had  been  guided  by  their 
former  political  connexion  in  the  choice  of  sides  as  to 
the  question  of  the  papacy,  it  is  remarked  by  a  writer  of 
the  time,  Richard  of  Ulverstone,  that  but  for  the  quarrels 
of  nations  the  schism  would  neither  have  been  so  lightly 
begun  nor  so  long  kept  up.a 

On  the  1  st  of  November  the  cardinals  of  Urban’s  party 
chose  as  his  successor  Peter  Tomacelli,b  cardinal  of  St. 
Anastasia,  who  took  the  name  of  Boniface  IX.  The 
new  pope,  according  to  some  authorities,  was  only  thirty 
years  of  age ;  but  others,  with  greater  probability,  make 
him  fourteen  years  older.0  He  is  described  as  possessed 
of  some  showy  personal  qualities,  but  without  any  learn¬ 
ing  or  any  such  knowledge  of  affairs  as  would  have  fitted 
him  for  his  position — although  this  last  defect  was  after¬ 
wards  in  some  degree  remedied  by  experience.11 

The  schism,  by  throwing  on  western  Christendom  the 
cost  of  maintaining  a  second  pontifical  court,  added  greatly 
to  the  burdens  which  had  before  been  matter  of  com¬ 
plaint.  Clement  VII.  endeavoured  to  swell  his  income 
by  the  most  unscrupulous  means,  and  the  grievances  of 
his  administration  excited  loud  outcries  from  the  church 
of  France.  He  surrounded  himself  with  a  body  of  no 
less  than  thirty-six  cardinals,  for  whom  he  provided  by 
usurping  the  patronage  of  all  the  church-preferment  that 
he  could  get  into  his  hands. e  A  new  kind  of  document 

*  Bui.  iv.  685;  Lenfant,  Cone,  de  Rayn.  1389.  12;  Schrockh,  xxxii.  90; 
Pise,  i.  65.  Gregorov.  vi.  528. 

a  Ap.  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  1170.  d  Th.  Niem,  ii.  6;  Vita  I.  Clem.  ap. 

b  C.  Zantfliet  calls  him  Tornacellus  Baluz.  524. 

(i.e.  a  whipping-top),  and  plays  on  the  e  Juv.  des  Ursins,  51;  Mon.  San- 
name.  dion.  i.  82,  who  says  that  in  Urban’s 

0  Th.  Niem,  ii.  6.  St.  Antoninus  obedience  churches  were  exempted 
says  that  he  was  thirty-four.  See  from  tithes  and  had  free  elections,  and 


224 


PAPAL  EXACTIONS. 


Book  VIII. 


was  introduced  under  the  name  of  gratia  exspectativa ,  by 
which  the  reversion  of  a  benefice  was  conferred,  and  the 
receiver  was  authorized  to  take  possession  as  soon  as  a 
vacancy  should  occur. f  The  old  resources — such  as 
reservations,  tenths,  dispensations  of  all  kinds,  and  the* 
jus  exuviarum  (which  was  now  exercised  on  the  property 
of  abbots  as  well  as  on  that  of  bishops) — were  worked 
to  the  uttermost,  and  were  developed  in  ways  before 
unknown. g  Promotion  was  bestowed  for  money  or  other 
improper  considerations,  without  regard  to  the  merit  or 
fitness  of  the  receivers ;  and,  as  learning  was  no  longer 
regarded  as  a  qualification  for  preferment,  schools  and 
colleges  were  broken  up,  and  even  the  university  of 
Paris  found  itself  comparatively  deserted  by  students.11 
While  the  French  church  and  people  groaned  under 
these  evils,  the  pope,  by  bestowing  a  part  of  the  spoil  on 
princes  and  powerful  nobles,  contrived  to  secure  their 
connivance  but  a  royal  edict  of  1385  in  some  degree, 
although  very  imperfectly,  corrected  the  abuses  which 
had  arisen.k 

While  the  French  pope  was  endeavouring  to  swell  his 
revenues  by  simony  and  rapacity,  Urban  VI.  was  honour¬ 
ably  distinguished  by  his  freedom  from  such  practices ; 1 
and  his  successor,  Boniface,  is  said  to  have  so  far  regarded 
the  opinion  of  the  elder  cardinals  that  for  the  first  seven 
years  of  his  pontificate  he  refrained  from  open  simony. 


that  there  was  no  interference  with 
the  rights  of  patrons,  while  Clement 
was  allowed  by  the  king  and  nobles 
to  oppress  the  church  of  France. 
f  Schrockh,  xxxi.  279. 

8  Mon.  Sandion.  i.  82-3,  86,  398, 
696;  Gieseler,  II.  iii.  141-2;  Dacher. 
Spicil.  i.  780.  As  to  annates,  see  V. 
d.  Hardt,  i.  764. 

h  Mon.  Sandion.  i.  86  ;  Juv.  des  Urs. 
1 1  ;  Bui.  iv.  884  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  141 ; 
Martin,  v.  349. 


1  De  Corrupto  Eccl.  Statu,  xxvii.  4, 
in  Nic.  de  Clemangis  Opera,  p.  26  (but 
perhaps  wrongly  ascribed  to  him — see 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  208,  although  Schwab 
maintains  the  old  opinion,  493-4) ; 
Baluz.  i.  537  ;  Mon.  Sandion.  i.  88. 

k  Lib.  de  1’  Egl.  Gall.  ii.  560 ;  Mon. 
Sandion.  i.  398.  Charles  himself  taxed 
the  clergy  heavily,  under  the  pretext 
that  the  schism  put  him  to  great  ex¬ 
penses  for  embassies,  etc.  Hefele,  vi. 
742.  1  See  above,  note  8 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1389-1404.  BONIFACE  IX. 


225 


But  when  the  old  men  were  dead,  he  entered  on  a  course 
of  rapacity  grosser  and  more  shameless  than  anything 
that  had  ever  been  known.111  Boniface  reserved  to  him¬ 
self  the  first  year’s  income  of  all  bishopricks  and  abbeys. 
Persons  who  aspired  to  preferment  of  this  kind  were 
required  to  pay  for  it  in  advance,  and,  if  unprovided  with 
ready  money,  they  were  obliged  to  borrow  at  extravagant 
interest  from  the  brokers  who  hung  about  the  papal  court.11 
Unions  of  benefices  were  simoniacally  made,0  and  men 
utterly  ignorant  were  allowed,  if  they  paid  sufficiently,  to 
be  exempt  from  the  laws  against  pluralities.11  Spies  were 
sent  throughout  Lombardy  and  other  countries  of  Boni¬ 
face’s  obedience,  to  discover  whether  any  incumbents  of 
rich  benefices  were  ill,  and  to  give  early  notice  of  any 
vacancy  to  their  employers.*1  The  “spoils”  of  prelates 
and  cardinals  were  plundered  before  the  owners  were 
actually  dead.  The  same  reversions  were  sold  repeatedly, 
the  last  buyers  having  their  papers  marked  for  preference;1 
but  as  this  practice  became  so  well  known  that  after  a 
time  purchasers  could  not  be  found  on  such  terms,  a 
form  of  precedence  over  all  other  preferences  was  devised 
in  order  to  attract  and  assure  them,  and  was,  of  course, 
sold  at  a  much  higher  price.s  The  pope  affected  to 
check  these  abuses  by  enacting  rules,  and  found  a  new 


m  Th.  Niem,  ii.  7 ;  Antonin.  404. 
“  Erat  enim  insatiabilis  vorago,  et  in 
avaritia  nullus  ei  similis  .  .  .  nec  credo 
quod  unquam  adeo  inverecundus  et  in- 
geniosus  quaestor  pecuniarum  repertus 
fuerit  prout  erat  pontifex  Bonifacius.” 
(Th.  Niem,  11.)  It  has  been  supposed 
that  this  writer,  who  had  been  the 
pope’s  secretary,  was  actuated  by  pri¬ 
vate  malice  in  describing  Boniface’s 
character  ;  but  the  suspicion  appears 
to  be  groundless.  As  to  the  exactions 
of  the  curia,  with  its  multitudes  of 
officers,  see  the  “Aureum  Speculum 
Papae,”  in  Fascic.  Rer.  Exp.  et  Fug.  i. 

VOL.  VII. 


94-5.  The  writer  thinks  “  quod  tota 
Romana  curia  est  in  via  damnationis 
.  .  .  omnis  enim  curtisanus  ipso  facto 
sui  officii  videtur  particeps  simonise.” 

n  Th.  Niem,  ii.  7 ;  Id.  Vita  Joh. 
XXIII.  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  345-7. 

0  Th.  Niem,  ii.  7. 

P  Gobel.  Pers.  317. 

1  Th.  Niem,  ii.  8.  This  .practice 
had  been  anticipated  by  Clement. 
Bui.  iv.  582. 

r  “Anteferri.”  Th.  Niem,  ii.  8,  9. 
Juvenal  des  Ursins  speaks  of  this  as 
practised  by  Clement  also.  11. 

8  Th.  Niem,  ii.  9. 

J5 


226 


PRACTICES  OF  BONIFACE  IX. 


Book  VIII. 


source  of  profit  in  granting  exemptions  from  his  rules.1 
By  a  like  policy  he  revoked  the  indulgences,  privileges, 
and  other  benefits  which  he  had  irregularly  bestowed,  and 
made  the  revocation  a  ground  for  fresh  exactions.11  Even 
after  the  first  year’s  income  of  a  benefice  had  been  paid 
in  order  to  secure  the  presentation,  the  purchaser  was 
liable  to  see  it  carried  off  by  a  later  comer  who  was 
willing  to  pay  more  highly ;  for  in  such  cases  the  pope 
professed  to  believe  that  those  who  had  made  the  lower 
offers  intended  to  cheat  him.x  The  system  of  corruption 
became  continually  more  ingenious  and  refined.y  Mem¬ 
bers  of  mendicant  orders  were  allowed,  on  payment  of 
a  hundred  gold  florins,  to  transfer  themselves  to  orders 
which  did  not  profess  mendicancy  ;  and  the  world  was 
astonished  at  seeing  such  payments  made  by  persons 
who  were  bound  by  their  rules  to  possess  nothing.2  The 
traffic  in  indulgences  was  carried  out  more  thoroughly 
than  before.a  The  pope  himself  was  not  above  accepting 
the  smallest  gains, b  and  his  mother,  who  is  described  as 
the  greediest  of  women,  with  his  three  brothers,  found 
opportunities  of  enriching  themselves.0  The  theory 
which  some  had  maintained  at  an  earlier  time,d  that  a 
pope  could  not  become  guilty  of  simony,  was  brought 
forward  by  Boniface’s  friends  as  the  only  plea  by  which 
his  practices  could  be  justified.®  Among  those  who 
obtained  preferment  by  such  means  as  were  then  neces¬ 
sary  were  many  worthless  and  unfit  persons/  and  for 
a  long  time  afterwards  the  clergy  of  the  “  Bonifacian 
plantation,  which  the  heavenly  Father  planted  not,”  were 


1  Schrockh,  xxxi.  294. 
u  Gobel.  Pers.  321-3. 
x  Th.»Niem.  ii.  9. 
y  lb.  11-12. 
z  Gobel.  Pers.  317. 
a  Antonin.  414. 

b  Th.  Niem,  ii.  12  ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
529-  ' 

c  Th.  Niem,  ii.  13.  St.  Antoninus 


says  that  the  sons  of  the  brothers  came 
to  poverty,  “  ut  eorum  exemplo  discant 
caeteri  de  patrimonio  Crucifixi  nolle  di- 
tari.”  414.  Cf.  Platina,  277  ;  Rayn. 
1397-  4- 

d  See  vol.  v.  p.  373. 

*  Th.  Niem,  ii.  32  ;  see  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  149. 

f  Th.  Niem,  ii.  12. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1389-90.  JUBILEE  OF  139°* 


227 


noted  as  the  least  reputable  of  their  class.g  In  some 
countries,  such  as  England  or  Hungary,  the  extravagance 
of  the  charges  exacted  by  the  Roman  court  on  appoint¬ 
ment  to  ecclesiastical  dignities  produced  an  effect  which 
Boniface  had  not  reckoned  on,  as  the  clergy  of  those 
countries  ceased  to  resort  to  Rome,  and  the  connexion 
of  the  national  churches  with  the  papacy  was  practically 
suspended.11 

Boniface,  at  his  accession,  found  the  jubilee  of  1390 
prepared  for  him  by  his  predecessor ;  and,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  difficulties  of  the  time — the  separation  of  France 
from  the  Roman  papacy,  and  the  consequent  absence  of 
French  pilgrims,  with  the  disturbed  state  of  affairs,  which 
placed  extraordinary  hindrances  in  the  way  of  travellers — 
a  large  number  of  visitors  appeared,  and  great  sums  were 
contributed  to  the  papal  treasury.  In  consideration  of  the 
impediments  which  made  the  journey  hazardous,  Boni¬ 
face  sent  emissaries  into  the  kingdoms  which  acknow¬ 
ledged  him,  with  a  commission  to  offer  the  benefits  of  the 
jubilee  and  a  dispensation  from  the  necessity  of  visiting 
Rome  in  person ;  and  although  it  is  said  that  much  of 
the  money  paid  for  this  indulgence  was  embezzled  by  the 
collectors,  it  brought  in  a  large  addition  to  the  profits  of 
the  jubilee — which,  while  a  portion  of  them  was  bestowed 
on  the  repairs  of  the  Roman  churches,  were  mostly 
retained  for  the  pope’s  own  use.1  The  difficulty  as  to 


s  Gerson  de  Modis  Uniendi,  etc., 
Ecclesiam,  Opera,  ii.  194. 

h  Th.  Niem,  de  Necessitate  Refor- 
mationis,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  284-5.  The 
English  were  especially  irritated  by  the 
system  of  making  the  vaeancy  of  a  high 
dignity  a  pretext  for  promoting  five  or 
six  persons — each  gaining  a  step,  and 
paying  the  dues  on  it.  See  Rymer, 
vii.  672  ;  Eulog.  Hist.  iii.  368. 

5  Th.  Niem,  i.  68,  who  says  that  the 
“  qusestuaries”  who  were  sent  to  hawk 


bout  the  indulgences  sold  them  to  the 
credulous  people  without  requiring  any 
condition  of  repentance.  Some  of  them 
were  enriched,  but  many  came  to  bad 
ends  :  “  Justum  enim  erat  ut  hi  qui  ta- 
iter  Christianum  populum  deceperunt 
eorum  avaritise  consulentesmaleperde- 
rentur.”  For  a  later  preaching  of  in¬ 
dulgences  under  Boniface,  see  the  same 
writer’s  Life  of  John  XXIII.,  in  V.  d, 
Hardt,  ii.  340-4. 


228 


JUBILEE  OF  1400. 


Book  VIII. 


Naples,  which  Urban  had  left  to  his  successor,  was  over¬ 
come  by  Boniface’s  acknowledging  Ladislaus  as  king,  and 
thus  securing  himself  against  the  risk  that  the  kingdom 
might  fall  under  the  spiritual  obedience  of  the  Avignon 

pope,  who  had  crowned  the  younger  Lewis 
Nov.  1,  1389.  c  .  .  .  .  ,  . 

of  Anjou  as  its  sovereign/  Bonuace  also 

complied  with  the  wishes  of  Ladislaus  by  sanctioning 

his  groundless  and  scandalous  divorce  and  re-marriage,1 

and  by  crowning  him  as  king  of  Hungary.  But  in  that 

country  Mary  and  her  husband  Sigismund  were  so  firmly 

established  that  Ladislaus  withdrew  from  the  attempt  to 

dispossess  them.111 

With  his  own  subjects  Boniface  had  serious  discords, 
which  obliged  him  to  leave  Rome  for  Perugia  in  1393  ; 
and  from  that  time  he  lived  in  provincial  towns  until 
the  approach  of  the  jubilee  of  1400,  when  the  Romans, 
considering  that  the  absence  of  the  pope  would  probably 
reduce  the  number  of  pilgrims  and  the  profits  of  the 
celebration,  made  overtures  for  his  return.  Boniface, 
although  he  had  already  benefited  by  the  calculation 
which  fixed  a  jubilee  for  1390,  was  very  willing  to  fall 
back  on  the  scheme  which  allowed  him  to  celebrate  a 
second  jubilee  within  ten  years  ;  and,  feeling  the  import¬ 
ance  of  his  presence  to  the  Romans,  he  took  advantage 
of  it  to  make  stipulations  which,  among  other  things, 
removed  the  democratic  bannerets  from  a  share  of  the 
government  and  placed  the  control  of  it  in  the  pope’s  own 
hands.11  The  jubilee  was  attended  by  great  multitudes ; 
the  French  had  been  eager  for  it,0  and  flocked  to  Rome, 
notwithstanding  their  king’s  prohibition,11  and  in  defiance 
of  the  dangers  with  which  the  journey  was  beset  from 
robbers  and  from  the  rude  and  licentious  soldiery  who 

k  Baluz.  I.  523;  Th.  Niem,  ii.  14-17.  537*8.  u  Th.  Niem,  ii.  28. 

1  Gobel.  Pers.  323.  v  Lenfant,  Cone,  de  Pise,  i.  125. 

m  Th.  Niem,  ii.  17  ;  Antonin.  458.  The  prohibition  is  in  Lib.  de  1'EgL 
n  Platina,  275  ;  Gregorov,  vi.  533-4,  Gall.  ii.  462. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1389-1400.  FRANCE  AND  THE  SCHISM. 


229 


swarmed  in  Italy/  From  those  who  were  unable  or 
unwilling  to  undertake  the  expedition,  Boniface  contrived 
to  draw  large  contributions  by  allowing  them,  on  the 
payment  of  offerings,  to  commute  it  for  the  visitation  of 
certain  churches  in  their  own  neighbourhood/  By  the 
wealth  derived  from  the  jubilee,  and  by  the  produce  of 
the  exactions  already  described,  the  pope  was  enabled  to 
repair  the  fortress  of  St.  Angelo  and  the  harbour  of  Ostia, 
to  fortify  the  Capitol  and  the  Vatican,  to  recover  some 
portions  of  the  papal  territory,  and  to  gain  such  a  power 
over  Rome  itself  as  no  one  of  his  predecessors  in  late 
times  had  enjoyed.8 

Early  in  his  pontificate  Boniface  endeavoured,  by 
repeated  letters  and  missives,  to  draw  the  French  king 
into  renouncing  the  obedience  of  Clement/  The  uni¬ 
versity  of  Paris  was  diligent  in  endeavouring  to  heal  the 
schism,  and  in  January  1394  obtained  leave  from  the 
duke  of  Berri,  who  was  then  in  power  during  one  of  the 
king’s  attacks  of  lunacy,  to  give  its  judgment  on  the 
subject.  A  chest  was  set  to  receive  the  opinions  of 
members  of  the  academic  body,  and  it  is  said  that  up¬ 
wards  of  ten  thousand  papers  were  thrown  into  it.u  The 
plans  proposed  in  these  opinions  were  found  to  be  redu¬ 
cible  to  three — that  both  popes  should  abdicate ;  that 
they  should  agree,  by  a  compromise,  on  a  list  of  persons 
to  whose  arbitration  the  matter  should  be  committed ; 
and  that  it  should  be  referred  to  a  general  councils  On 


9  Th.  Niem,  ii.  28.  From  the  con¬ 
course  at  this  jubilee  a  plague  was 
spread  all  over  Europe.  Monstrel.  i. 
80 ;  Bardin,  in  Preuves  de  1’  Hist,  de 
Langued.  iv.  32. 

r  This  was,  for  example,  first  allowed 
as  to  Cologne,  and  afterwards  was  ex¬ 
tended  to  insignificant  towns  or  monas¬ 
teries  of  Germany  (Gobel.  Pers.  320). 
For  the  special  privilege  granted  to  the 
Bolognese,  see  Cron.  Bologn.  in  Murat. 


xviii.  553-4. 

8  Th.  Niem,  ii.  13-14  ;  Antonin.  414 ; 
Gobel.  Pers.  316 ;  Gregorov.  vi.  540, 
547-8,  677. 

*  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  768-70  (a.d.  1391- 

3)- 

u  Mon.  Sandion.  xiv.  10 ;  Dach. 
Spicil.  i.  769  (where  there  is  a  blank  for 
the  number)  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  283. 

x  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  777-8  ;  Mon.  San¬ 
dion.  1.  c. 


230 


DEATH  OF  CLEMENT  VII. 


Book  VIII. 


this  basis  the  judgment  of  the  university  was  drawn  up 

by  Nicholas  of  Clemanges  (who  was  styled  the  “  Cicero  of 

his  age  ”),  with  the  assistance  of  Peter  d’Ailly 
June  30,  1394.  ,  °  ,  _  .  .  .  ,  .  , 

and  Giles  Deschamps ;  and  it  was  submitted 

to  the  king,  who  had  again  become  capable  of  attending 

to  business.3"  But  Charles,  although  he  thanked  the 

members  of  the  university  for  their  pains,  was  persuaded 

by  cardinal  de  Luna  and  other  friends  of  Clement  to 

desire  that  they  would  not  concern  themselves  further 

with  the  matter;  and  the  professors  suspended  their 

teaching  until  their  representation  should  receive  due 

attention.2  The  judgment  was  forwarded  to  pope 

Clement, a  who  declared  it  to  be  defamatory  of  the 

apostolic  see,  full  of  venom  and  detraction,  and  unfit  to 

be  read  ;  but  on  finding  that  his  cardinals  were  inclined 

to  the  opinion  of  the  university,  he  was  thrown  into  an 

agitation  which  in  a  few  days  put  an .  end  to  his  life  on 

the  1 6th  of  September  i394-b 

On  this,  Charles  of  France,  at  the  instigation  of  the 

university  of  Paris,  and  with  the  hope  of  bringing  the 

schism  to  an  end,  wrote  two  letters  to  the 

'  2  4‘  cardinals  of  the  Avignon  court,  desiring  that 

they  would  not  be  in  haste  to  elect  a  new  pope.0  But 

his  first  letter  found  them  already  assembled  in  conclave, 

although  not  yet  shut  in  ;  and  suspecting  its  purport, 

they  resolved  to  leave  it  unopened  until  the  election 

_  ,  should  have  been  decided.^  Each  member 

oCDt 

of  the  college  took  an  oath  that,  if  elected,  he 
would  labour  for  the  extinction  of  the  schism,  even  to 
the  extent  of  resigning,  if  such  a  step  should  be  for  the 
benefit  of  the  church,  or  if  the  cardinals,  or  a  majority  of 


y  Mon.  Sandion.  xv.  3 ;  Dach.  Spicil.  701. 
i.  777,  seqq. ;  Bui.  iv.  687.  c  Mon.  Sandion.  xv.  6,  7;  Dach. 

z  Mon.  Sandion.  xv.  4;  Bui.  iv.  710.  Spicil.  i.  770;  Lenfant,  i.  73. 
a  Spicil.  i.  785  ;  Bui.  iv.  699-700.  d  Mon.  Sandion.  xv.  8 ;  Dach.  SpiciL 

b  Mon.  SancT'm.  xv.  5.  See  Bui.  iv.  i.  771. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1394. 


BENEDICT  XIII. 


231 


them,  she  aid  think  it  expedient ; e  and  they  chose  Peter 
de  Luna,  cardinal  of  St.  Mary  in  Cosmedin, 
who  styled  himself  Benedict  XIII.'  The  bept'  2S' 
new  pope,  a  Spaniard,  had  been  noted  for  his  ability  as 
a  negotiator ;  he  had  obtained  for  Clement  the  adhesion 
of  Castile,  and  at  Paris  had  raised  up  a  party  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  university.8  Although  he  was  one  of  those 
who  had  begun  the  schism  by  the  election  of  Clement  at 
Fondi,  he  had  been  accustomed  to  lament  that  step,  to 
blame  Clement  for  the  policy  by  which  the  separation 
was  continued,  and  to  profess  an  eager  desire  for  the  re¬ 
union  of  the  church  at  whatever  sacrifice.11  But  it  soon 
became  evident  how  little  he  was  disposed  to  act  sincerely 
on  his  former  professions.  He  had  at  the  election  avowed 
an  opinion  that  the  oath  which  was  proposed  could  not 
bind  the  pope  except  so  far  as  every  Catholic  was  bound 
by  right  and  conscience ; 1  and  although  he  still  con¬ 
tinued  to  speak  as  before — declaring  that,  if  he  himself 
only  were  concerned,  he  would  put  off  the  papacy  as 
readily  as  if  it  were  a  cloak  ,  that  he  would  rather  spend 
his  remaining  days  in  a  desert  than  give  occasion  for 
prolonging  the  schism  k — he  was  now  able  to  put  his  own 
interpretation  on  his  late  engagement. 

The  university  of  Paris  took  continually  a  more  active 
part  in  endeavouring  to  heal  the  schism.  It  offered  its 


e  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  771 ;  Baluz.  i.  567. 
Lenfant  remarks  that  these  conditions 
left  room  for  evasion.  Cone,  de  Pise, 
i-  75- 

f  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  771 ;  Mon.  Sandion. 
1.  xv.  8.  Froissart  says  that  the  elec¬ 
tion  was  made  subject  to  the  French 
king’s  approval,  and  cries  out  against 
the  subserviency  to  which  the  church 
had  been  reduced,  (xiii.  190.)  The 
election  had  taken  place  a  fortnight, 
when  Boniface  wrote  from  Rome,  to 
beg  that  the  French  king  would  pre¬ 
vent  such  a  proceeding.  Dach.  Spicil. 


i.  787. 

e  See  above,  pp.  210,  230  ;  Mariana, 
t.  ii.  209;  Baluz.  ii.  925-6,  1182,  seqq. 

h  Th.  Niem,  ii.  33  ;  Lenf.  Cone,  de 
Pise,  i.  70. 

'  Baluz.  ii.  1107-8.  “Whatsoever 
promises  might  be  made  [at  elections], 
the  pope  could  never  be  bound  by  the 
oaths  of  the  cardinals.”  Gibbon,  vi. 
397- 

*  Mon.  Sandion.  1.  xv.  9;  Joh.  Par¬ 
vus,  ap.  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  Prsef. 
xlii.  :  Hefele,  vi.  705-6. 


232  NATIONAL  COUNCIL  AT  PARIS.  Book  VIII. 

advice  to  Benedict,  and  requested  him  to  exert  himself 
for  the  union  of  the  church;  but  the  letter  received  only 
an  evasive  reply.1  The  leaders  of  the  university,  Peter 
d’Ailly,  Nicolas  of  Clemanges,  and  John  Gerson,  were 
opposed  alike  to  the  papal  despotism  and  to  any  schemes 
which  would  have  proposed  to  remedy  this  by  a  revolution 
in  the  system  of  the  church.  But  in  the  meantime  the 
increasing  pressure  of  the  evils  which  arose  out  of  the 
schism  drove  others  into  speculations  as  to  the  means  of 
healing  it  which  touched  the  very  foundations  of  the  papal 
power. 

On  the  Festival  of  the  Purification,  1395,  a  national 

_  ,  council  was  held  at  Paris.  The  king  was 
prevented  from  attending  by  an  attack  of 
his  terrible  malady;  but  the  princes  of  the  royal  house 
were  present,  and  among  the  clergy  were  the  titular  patri¬ 
archs  of  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem,  seven  archbishops, 
and  a  great  number  of  bishops,  with  representatives  of 
the  monastic  orders  and  of  the  universities.  Simon  de 
Cramault,  patriarch  of  Alexandria  and  administrator  of  the 
diocese  of  Carcassonne,  presided.01  Before  this  assembly 
Avas  read  the  judgment  of  the  university  in  favour  of  the 
plan  that  both  popes  should  resign.  It  was  adopted  by 
a  majority  of  87  to  22  ;n  and  after  it  had  been  formally 
reported  by  the  prelates  to  the  king,0  a  mission,  headed 
by  the  dukes  of  Berri,  Burgundy,  and  Orleans,  proceeded 


1  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  772-3 ;  Juv.  des 
Urs.  106;  Mon.  Sandion.  1.  xv.  10; 
Bui.  iv.  713-16,  724. 

m  Mon.  Sandion.  t.  ii.  218;  Juv.  des 
Urs.  1 67  ;  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  773-4 ;  Mansi, 
xxvi.  773,  seqq. ;  Bui.  iv.  732  ;  Hefele, 
vi.  708.  Peter  d’Ailly  had  shortly  be¬ 
fore  been  sent  by  the  king  to  Avignon, 
but  the  answer  which  he  brought  back 
is  unknown.  (Spicil.  i.  773 ;  Mon. 
Sandion.  t.  ii.  218,  224.)  Schwab 
describes  Cramault  as  a  man  who 


spoke  loudly  for  unity,  but  in  reality 
looked  only  to  his  selfish  objects  ;  who 
agitated  the  university  on  the  question 
until,  after  the  council  of  Pisa,  he  got 
the  archbishoprick  of  Reims  and  the 
dignity  of  cardinal  (135).  Benedict 
styles  him  and  the  abbot  of  St.  Michel, 
“  tocius  perturbacionis  et  discordie 
auctores.”  Mon.  Sandion.  t.  ii.  756. 

“  Mon.  Sandion.  1.  xv.  11-12;  Spicil. 
i.  774  ;  Mansi,  xxvi.  785. 

0  lb.  786. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1395. 


MISSION  TO  AVIGNON. 


n  ^  '•y 


to  Avignon,  for  the  purpose  of  laying  before  Benedict  the 
various  courses  which  had  been  proposed  with  a  view  to 
end  the  schism,  and  of  recommending  the  way  of  cession 
as  the  speediest  and  most  dignified. p  At  the  same  time 
a  letter  of  similar  purport  was  addressed  to  Benedict  by 
the  university  of  Paris.q  The  cardinals,  although  it  is 
said  that  high  words  passed  among  them/  for  the  most 
part  declared  themselves  in  favour  of  the  proposed 
scheme ; 8  but  Benedict,  after  much  delay  and  many 
evasions,  professed  to  think  that  a  confer¬ 
ence  between  himself  and  his  rival  would  be 
more  hopeful ; 1  while  to  one  who  visited  him  he  declared 
that  he  would  rather  be  flayed  alive  than  resign/  and  he 
wrote  letters  of  remonstrance  both  to  king  Charles  and 
to  the  duke  of  Burgundy. x  The  representatives  of  the 
university  were  indignant  at  the  rudeness  which  they  ex¬ 
perienced  from  the  pope’s  servants  and  at  his  refusal  to 
receive  them  publicly,  and  the  embassy  left  Avignon  in 
disgust, — the  duke  of  Berri,  in  the  name  of  the  rest,  re¬ 
fusing  an  invitation  to  the  pope’s  table.7  The  proposal 
of  a  conference  was  received  with  general  disfavour,  as 
it  was  suspected  that  such  a  meeting  would  result  in  an 
agreement  for  the  partition  of  Christendom  between  the 
two  popes,  and  consequently  would  prolong  the  schism.2 


P  Informatio  Seriosa,  in  Baluz.  ii. 
mo  ;  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  437,  487  ; 
Mansi,  xxvi.  787,  795-6.  Cf.  Mon. 
Sandion.  1.  xvi.  1  ;  Juv.  des  Urs.  108. 
^  Mansi,  xxvi.  798  ;  Bui.  iv.  740. 
r  Juv.  des  Urs.  in. 

8  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  791-4  ;  cf.  Baluz. 
ii.  1113  ;  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  530,  seqq. ; 
Mon.  Sandion.  1.  xvi.  4,  10.  While  the 
princes  were  at  Villeneuve,  on  the  oppo¬ 
site  side  of  the  Rhone,  the  bridge  which 
connected  it  with  Avignon  was  partly 
burnt ;  and  this  was  generally  supposed 
to  have  been  done  by  Benedict’s  con¬ 
trivance,  in  order  to  check  the  fre¬ 
quency  of  their  negotiations  with  those 


around  him.  He  denied  on  oath  that 
he  had  any  concern  in  it,  and  perhaps 
it  may  have  been  the  work  of  persons 
who  wished  to  keep  the  dukes  at  a 
distance  from  him.  See  Mon.  San¬ 
dion.  xvi.  7  ;  Juv.  des  Urs.  m  ;  Hist. 
Langued.  iv.  409. 

t  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  789  ;  Mart.  Coll. 
Ampl.  vii.  528 ;  Mon.  Sandion.  xvi. 
2-6,  13. 

n  Mansi,  xxvi.  870. 
x  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  794 ;  Bui.  iv.  748. 
y  Juv.  des  Urs.  113  ;  Mon.  Sandion. 
1.  xvi.  11. 

z  Schmidt,  iv.  38. 


234 


ATTEMPTS  TO  HF.AL 


Book  VIII. 


Still  eager  to  bring  the  schism  to  an  end,  the  king  of 
France  endeavoured  to  enlist  other  princes  in  the  same 
cause,  while  the  university  of  Paris  entered  into  corre¬ 
spondence  with  universities  of  other  countries  on  the 
subjects  From  Cologne  a  letter  had  been  received, 
exhorting  the  Parisians  to  labour  for  peace,  but  showing 
an  inclination  to  the  side  of  Boniface.b  From  Oxford 
came  a  declaration  in  favour  of  a  general  council  ;c 
but  king  Richard  of  England  preferred  the  scheme  of  a 
cession,  and  wrote  to  both  popes  in  recommendation  of 
it.d  The  university  of  Toulouse  maintained,  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  that  of  Paris,  that  not  even  a  general  council  has 
authority  to  judge  the  pope  ;e  and  in  this,  as  in  other 
matters,  the  Dominicans  held  against  the  Parisian  uni¬ 
versity,  from  which  they  had  been  excluded  some  years 
before  on  account  of  their  resistance  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  immaculate  conception. f  Provoked  by  opposition, 
Benedict  condemned  some  members  of  the  university  to 
the  loss  of  their  preferments  ;  whereupon  the  academical 
body  appealed  against  him  to  a  future,  sole,  and  real 
pope  ;  and  when  he  declared  appeals  from  the  pope  to 
be  unlawful,  it  repeated  the  act,  asserting  that  schis- 
matical  and  heretical  popes  were  subject  in  life  to  the 
judgment  of  general  councils,  and  after  death  to  that  of 
their  own  successors. s 

In  March  1398  the  emperor  Wenceslaus  and  the  king 
of  France  met  at  Reims,  with  a  view  to  settling  the  ter¬ 
mination  of  the  schism.11  It  was  agreed  that  abdication 


a  Mon.  Sandion.  xvi.  14  ;  xvii.  1  ; 
Schrockh,  xxxi.  315-16  ;  Martin,  v.  445. 

b  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  782-3  (with  the 
answer).  Cf.  Bui.  iv.  703. 

c  lb.  776,  seqq.  See  Goldast,  i. 
229-32,  for  the  opinions  of  universities 
to  this  effect. 

d  Mon.  Sandion.  xvii.  11  :  Bui.  iv. 
755,  seqq.;  Milm.  v.  445.  Richard 
styled  Benedict  cardinal,  but  gave 


Boniface  the  title  of  sovereign  pontiff. 
e  Hist,  de  Langued.  iv.  410. 

1  See  below,  c.  xi.  iii.  4. 

6  Bui.  iv.  803,  825,  etc.;  Schrockh, 
xxxi.  317  ;  Schwab,  143. 

h  Froissart  mentions  the  splendour 
of  the  reception.  (1.  iv.  c.  62.)  Wen¬ 
ceslaus  disgusted  the  French  king  by 
his  coarse  excesses.  When  engaged 
to  dine  with  Charles,  as  he  did  not  ap- 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1395-8. 


THE  GREAT  SCHISM. 


235 


should  be  recommended  both  to  Benedict  and  to  Boni¬ 
face,  with  a  view  to  the  appointment  of  a  new  pope,  who 
should  be  chosen  by  the  cardinals  of  both  parties ;  and, 
if  this  recommendation  should  be  neglected,  each  of  the 
sovereigns  undertook  to  depose  the  pope  to  whom  he 
had  before  adhered.1  Peter  d’Ailly,  now  bishop  of 
Cambray,  was  sent  to  the  courts  of  Rome  and  Avignon 
with  a  charge  to  announce  this  resolution ;  but  the 
mission  was  ineffectual,  as  each  pope,  although  he  did 
not  absolutely  reject  the  proposal,  insisted  that  his  rival 
should  be  the  first  to  resignA 

Another  national  council  was  held  at  Paris  in  May 
1398,  under  the  presidency  of  the  patriarch  of  Alexan¬ 
dria.1  The  question  was  proposed,  whether,  if  Benedict 
should  obstinately  refuse  to  resign,  the  French  should 
continue  to  acknowledge  him,  or  whether  they  should 
withdraw  their  obedience,  either  entirely,  or  in  so  far  as 
regarded  the  patronage  and  temporalities  which  he  had 
usurped?  A  committee  of  twelve,  chosen  equally  from 
among  the  friends  and  the  opponents  of  Benedict,  drew 
up  a  statement  of  the  reasons,  on  the  one  hand,  for 
adhesion,  and  on  the  other  hand  for  total  or  partial 
withdrawal.  After  a  discussion  of  twelve  days,  two 
hundred  and  forty-seven  members  out  of  June  3  to 
three  hundred  pronounced  for  a  total  with-  July  28. 
drawal;m  and,  some  weeks  later,  this  resolution  was  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  king,  who  had  then  recovered  in  some 


pear,  he  was  sent  for,  and  was  found 
to  be  already  drunk  and  asleep.  (Mon. 
Sandion.  1.  xviii.  10,  112.)  Rupert, 
count  palatine,  whose  son,  of  the  same 
name,  afterwards  superseded  Wences- 
laus  as  king  of  the  Romans,  had  en¬ 
deavoured  in  a  letter  to  dissuade  him 
from  going  to  Reims,  at  the  same  time 
advising  him  as  to  the  course  which 
he  should  take  if  he  went.  Martene, 
Thes.  ii.  1x72  ;  Lenf.  Cone,  de  Pise, 
i.  103. 


*  Mon.  Sandion.  p.  570. 

k  Mansi,  xxvi.  1198 ;  Froiss.  xiv. 
126-35  ;  Hefele,  vi.  726.  Similar  an¬ 
swers  had  already  been  given  to  depu¬ 
tations.  Antonin.  416. 

1  Mon.  Sandion.  1.  xix.  2.  See  the 
acts  in  Bourgeois  de  Chastenet,  Ap¬ 
pend.  pp.  3,  seqq. 

m  lb.  4,  55,  seqq.,  79;  Mon,  San¬ 
dion.  1.  xix.  2  ;  Gersoniana,  20  ;  Juv. 
desUrs.  133  ;  Bui.  iv.  829,  seqq.;  Lenf. 
Cone,  de  Pise,  i.  no ;  Helele,  vi.  729. 


2  36 


FRANCE  RENOUNCES  BENEDICT. 


Eook  VIII. 


degree  from  an  attack  of  madness.  The  subjects  of  the 
crown  were  forbidden  to  obey  Benedict,  or  to  pay  any 
of  the  ecclesiastical  revenues  to  him.  The  king  declared 
that  capitular  and  monastic  elections  should  be  free  from 
the  control  which  popes  had  exercised  over  them,  and 
he  annulled  the  “  expectative  ”  presentations  which  Bene¬ 
dict  had  granted.11  But  Benedict,  on  being  informed  of 
the  resolutions  of  the  council,  declared  that  nothing 
should  make  him  resign  the  dignity  which  God  had 
been  pleased  to  bestow  on  him.0 

On  this,  the  marshal  of  France,  Boucicault,  was  sent 
with  a  force  to  Avignon,  where  the  citizens  admitted  him 
within  their  walls,  while  the  cardinals  with- 
a.d.  139S.  ^rew  across  the  Rhone  to  the  French  town 
of  Villeneuve,  leaving  one  of  their  number,  whose  tastes 
and  habits  were  military,  in  command  of  Avignon. p 
The  pope  was  besieged  in  his  palace,  but  on  each  side 
there  was  an  unwillingness  to  proceed  to  extremities  ; 
the  besiegers,  although  they  tried  to  enter  the  papal 
fortress  by  various  ways,q  refrained  from  attempting  to 
take  it  by  storm ;  and  Benedict,  in  the  hope  of  profiting 
by  the  intrigues  of  the  parties  which  surrounded  the 
throne  of  the  unfortunate  Charles  VI.,  refrained  from 
uttering  the  usual  denunciations  against  the  French/ 

The  plans  which  had  been  arranged  for  bringing  the 
influence  of  sovereigns  to  bear  on  the  popes,  and  com¬ 
pelling  them  to  resign,  were  foiled  by  the  deposition  of 
Richard  of  England  in  1399,  and  by  that  of  the  volup¬ 
tuary  Wenceslaus,  who  in  the  following  year  was  set 
aside,  as  having  shown  himself  unworthy  of  his  office  by 

n  Mon.  Sandion.  1.  xix.  5;  Lib.  de  1 122-3  ;  Froiss.  xiv.  137,  seqq. ;  Mon. 
l’Egl.  Gall.  ii.  439,  seqq. ;  Bui.  iv.  853  ;  Sandion.  xix.  8  ;  Lenfant,  Cone,  de 
Baluz.  ii.  1131  ;  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  799;  Pise,  i.  114  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  320. 
Mansi,  xxvi.  839-910.  1  Inform.  Ser.  1125. 

0  Schrockh,  xxxi.  320.  r  Milm.  v.  437-8. 

P  Informatio  Seriosa,  in  Baluz.  ii. 


Chap. V.  a. d.  1398-1403.  RUPERT,  KING  OF  THE  ROMANS.  237 


alienation  of  the  imperial  territory  and  rights,  by  cruelty, 
misgovernment,  ill  behaviour  towards  the  church,  gross 
personal  misconduct,  and  general  neglect  of  his  duties.8 
The  king  of  Aragon,  on  being  requested  by  Benedict  to 
assist  him,  had  answered,  “  Does  the  pope  think  that,  in 
order  to  keep  up  his  tricks,  I  shall  go  to  war  with  the 
king  of  France?”1  But  he  exerted  himself  as  a  mediator, 
and  through  his  influence  a  compromise  was  arranged 
after  Avignon  had  been  besieged  for  seven  months.  The 
pope,  who  had  been  reduced  to  great  distress,  was  to  be 
allowed  to  receive  provisions  into  the  palace,  but  a  strict 
watch  was  kept  lest  he  should  escape  with  his  treasures;11 
and  this  state  of  partial  imprisonment  continued  from 
April  1399  until  March  1403,  when  Benedict,  by  the 
aid  of  a  Norman  gentleman,  Robinet  de  Braquemont, 
escaped  from  Avignon,  and  made  his  way  down  the 
Rhone  to  Chateau  Renaud.  There  he  was  under  the 
protection  of  Lewis  of  Sicily  and  Provence, x  and  his 
cardinals  returned  to  their  obedience. 

Rupert,  count  palatine  of  the  Rhine,  had  been  chosen 

king  of  the  Romans  on  the  deposition  of 

^  ..  .  .  .  .  Aug.  20, 1400. 

Wenceslaus ;  and  Boniface,  although  he 

acted  with  caution,  had  given  the  electors  reason  to 

suppose  that  he  would  sanction  the  change. y  But 

Rupert,  although  personally  far  superior  to  Wenceslaus, 

found  the  force  of  circumstances  too  strong  to  admit  of 

his  asserting  the  rights  of  the  empire  with  effect ;  for  the 

princes  of  Germany,  by  weakening  the  power  of  the 


3  Urstis.  ii.  182  ;  Antonin.  447  ;  Mart. 
Thes.  i.  163  ;  Coll.  Ampl.  iv.  3,  seqq., 
16-21  ;  Aschbach,  i.  138,  seqq.  Wen¬ 
ceslaus  had  not  received  the  imperial 
crown — having  spent  on  other  objects 
the  ecclesiastical  tithe  which  Urban 
VI.  had  granted  him  for  the  expedi¬ 
tion  to  Rome.  Th.  Niem,  ii.  5. 

*  Froiss.  xiv.  140. 

u  Mon.  Sandion.  1.  xix.  12 ;  Froiss. 


xiv.  4 ;  Baluz.  ii.  1127 ;  Lenf.  Cone, 
de  Pise,  i.  115. 

x  Mon.  Sandion.  1.  xxiii.  16 ;  xxiv. 
4-5 ;  Juv.  des  Urs.  152.  He  now 
shaved  his  beard,  which  he  had  sworn 
to  wear  until  he  should  get  his  liberty. 
Mon.  Sandion. 

y  Rayn.  1401.  2,  9  ;  Palacky,  III.  i. 
124  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  155  >  Hefele,  vL 
734- 


RUPERT  IN  ITALY. 


Book  VIII. 


238 


crown,  had  in  reality  caused  the  anarchy  for  which  they 
now  blamed  the  existing  sovereign.2  On 

A.  D.  1401*2.  .  .  T  . 

going  into  Italy,  to  which  he  had  been 
urgently  invited  by  the  Florentines, a  he  found  that  his 
citations  were  little  heeded,  while  his  authority  was 
openly  treated  with  contempt  by  John  Galeazzo  of 
Milan,  who  declared  that  he  had  received  his  duchy 
from  a  legitimate  emperor,  and  would  not  give  it  up.b 
Discouraged  by  such  manifestations  of  the  temper  of  the 
Italians,  by  a  defeat  in  an  encounter  with  Galeazzo  near 
Brescia,0  and  by  the  defection  of  some  princes 
c .  21,1401.  wkQ  jiacj  accompanieci  him  across  the  Alps, 

Rupert  returned  to  Germany  without  having  advanced 
beyond  Padua,  and  without  having  obtained  even  a 
promise  of  the  imperial  crown  from  the  pope.a  Boni¬ 
face,  however,  soon  after  condescended  to  confirm  the 
election  ;e  for,  while  his  own  position  was  in  jeopardy, 
he  continued  to  hold  the  lofty  language  of  Hildebrand 
and  of  the  Innocents.1  The  death  of  John  Galeazzo, 
who  was  carried  off  by  a  plague  in  September  1402,  threw 
the  north  of  Italy  for  a  time  into  frightful  anarchy  but 
although  circumstances  seemed  to  invite  Rupert  to  a 
second  Italian  expedition,  and  Boniface  granted  him  a 
tenth  of  the  ecclesiastical  income  for  the  expenses  of  his 
coronation,  the  clergy  refused  to  pay  this  impost,  and 
the  king  felt  himself  compelled  to  remain  at  home.h 

In  the  meantime  circumstances  had  favoured  Benedict. 
The  king’s  brother,  the  duke  of  Orleans,  espoused  his 
cause,  in  the  hope  of  being  able  to  use  the  papal  name 
as  a  counterpoise  to  the  influence  of  his  kinsmen,  the 


1  Sism.  R.  I.  v.  387. 
a  Antonin.  448. 

b  Schmidt,  iv.  49,  seqq.  0  lb.  55. 
d  Mon.  Sandion.  xxi.  8 ;  Antonin. 

449,  450- 

e  Th.  Niem,  ii.  14 ;  Rayn.  1403. 


f  Schmidt,  iv.  57.  See  Planck,  v. 
347-  g  See  Th.  Niem,  ii.  29. 

h  Sism.  R.  I.  396 ;  vi.  48 ;  Schmidt, 
iv.  59.  Theodoric  of  Niem  censures 
Rupert  strongly,  and  perhaps  unjustly, 
for  “desidia.”  Nemus  Unionis,  vi. 
32-3. 


1-2. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1401-3. 


FRANCE  REUNITED. 


239 


dukes  of  Berri  and  Burgundy.1  The  most  eminent 
theologians — Peter  d’Ailly,  Nicolas  of  Clemanges  (who 
had  even  become  the  pope’s  secretary), k  and  John 
Gerson — were  on  his  side.1  The  university  of  Toulouse, 
which  had  always  been  with  Benedict,  urged  a  return  to 
his  obedience.111  Even  in  the  university  of  Paris,  the 
French  and  Picard  nations  were  for  a  return,  while  the 
Normans  were  against  it  and  the  Germans  were  neutral.11 
It  was  urged  that  the  withdrawal  of  obedience  had  been 
ineffectual,  inasmuch  as  no  one  of  the  powers  which 
acknowledged  the  rival  pope  had  taken  a  like  step ;  that 
Benedict  had  deserved  well  by  accepting  the  scheme  of 
abdication,  while  Boniface  had  rejected  it.  A  national 
assembly  resolved  that  France  should  return 
to  the  obedience  of  Benedict,  and  the  king,  May  ^°’  I4°^' 
who  was  enjoying  an  interval  of  reason,  was  brought 
forward  to  take  part  in  the  solemnity  by  which  the  return 
was  celebrated.0  It  was  agreed  that  Benedict  should 
resign  in  case  of  Boniface’s  resignation,  deposition,  or 
death ;  that  ecclesiastical  appointments  which  had  been 
made  during  the  suspension  of  obedience  should  be 
ratified ;  and  the  pope  promised  that  he  would  speedily 


1  Mon.  Sandion.  xxiii.  16  ;  Bui.  v. 

56. 

k  It  was  with  reluctance  that  he 
consented,  and  he  expresses  joy  at 
being  released  from  the  service,  though 
he  speaks  with  gratitude  of  the  pope’s 
considerate  behaviour  towards  him. 
The  tone  of  the  papal  court,  he  says, 
was  better  than  that  of  secular  courts. 
Ep.  14 ;  cf.  Ep.  54  (Opera,  ed.  Lydius, 
Lugd.  Bat.  1613). 

1  Gerson,  Trilogus  (Opera,  ii.  83) — 
of  date  1402-3,  although  referred  by 
Dupin  to  1407  (Schwab,  160);  Lenf. 
Cone,  de  Pise,  i.  118;  Neand.  ix.  91-2  ; 
Schrbckh,  xxxi.  322. 

m  See  Bui.  v.  4-24  (a.d.  1401),  and 
the  Paris  replies,  25,  seqq,,  30,  seqq.; 
Mon.  Sandion.  xxiii.  1 ;  Rayn.  1403. 


18  ;  Schwab,  153. 

n  Mon.  Sandion.  xxiv.  5.  The  uni¬ 
versity  had  been  disgusted  at  finding 
that  the  bishops,  who  exercised  the 
papal  patronage  during  the  withdrawal, 
were  unfavourable  to  its  members. 
Bui.  v.  309 ;  Hefele,  vi.  743.  See 
Schwab,  152. 

0  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  677 ;  Bui.  v. 
66 ;  Lib.  de  1’Egl.  Gall.  ii.  468 ;  Gerson, 
de  Restit.  Obedientiae,  Opera,  ii.  32  ; 
Juv.  des  Urs.  154;  Mon.  Sandion. 
xxiii.  14 ;  xxiv.  5-6.  See  Gerson’s 
sermon,  Opera,  ii.  35  ;  his  sermon  at 
Marseilles,  before  Benedict,  Nov.  9, 
1403,  ib.  43,  etc.  ;  Hefele,  vi.  745-6. 
D’Ailly  preached  at  the  ceremony. 
Mon.  Sandion.  xxiv.  6. 


240 


DEATH  OF  BONIFACE  IX. 


Book  VIII. 


call  a  general  council,  and  that  he  would  carry  out 
the  resolutions  which  it  might  decree.p  But  he  soon 
showed  an  inclination  to  evade  these  terms,  and  the 
royal  authority  was  found  necessary  to  enforce  the  article 
as  to  the  confirmation  of  benefices. 

In  1404  Benedict  sent  a  mission  to  his  rival  with 
proposals  for  a  conference.  But  Boniface  refused  to 
allow  any  equality  of  terms, — speaking  of  himself  as  sole 
pope,  and  of  Benedict  as  an  antipope  ;  and,  although 
the  envoys  had  a  safe  conduct  from  the  Romans,  and 
even  from  Boniface  himself,  he  required  them  to  leave 
the  city.  “  At  least,”  said  they,  provoked  by  this  treat¬ 
ment,  “our  master  is  not  a  simoniac  ”  ;  and  it  is  said 
that  the  words  affected  the  pope  so  strongly 
as  to  produce  an  illness  which  carried  him  off 
in  three  days.r  Thus  had  occurred  one  of  the  contingen¬ 
cies  in  which  Benedict  had  pledged  himself  to  resign;  and 
the  Roman  cardinals  asked  his  representatives  whether 
they  were  furnished  with  authority  for  that  purpose. 
The  envoys  could  only  reply  that  their  commission  did 
not  reach  so  far ;  but  they  entreated  that  the  cardinals 
would  refrain  from  any  fresh  election.  This  request,  how¬ 
ever,  was  treated  as  a  jest,s  and  the  cardinals  proceeded 

*  to  choose  Cosmato  Migliorati,  cardinal  of 

Oct.  17.  to  J 

Holy  Cross,  who  took  the  name  of  Innocent 
VII.  Every  one  of  the  electors  had  bound  himself  by 


p  Lib.  de  l’Egl.  Gall.  ii.  463-70 ; 
Mon.  Sandion.  xxiv.  6 ;  Bourgeois  de 
Chast.  App.  85-6. 

lb.  16  ;  Juv.  des  Urs.  154  ;  Bui. 
v.  67 ;  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  1266 ;  Dach. 
Spicil.  i.  799  (Dec.  19) ;  Schrockh, 
xxxi.  324. 

1  Th.  Niem,  ii.  23-4;  Mon.  Sandion. 
xxv.  22.  Gobel.  Persona  gives  another 
account  of  his  death.  323.  It  is  said 
that,  when  asked  on  his  death-bed 
how  he  felt  himself  he  characteristi¬ 


cally  answered,  “  If  I  had  money,  I 
should  be  well.”  Th.  Niem,  ii.  22. 

8  “  Trufatke.”  Th.  Niem,  ii.  24. 
Benedict’s  envoys  were  imprisoned  by 
the  commandment  of  St.  Angelo,  a 
relation  of  Boniface,  and  a  large  ran¬ 
som  was  extorted.  (Th.  Niem,  ii.  24  ; 
Mon.  Sandion.  xxv.  22.)  Charles  VI. 
wrote  to  complain  of  this,  and  against 
the  election  of  a  successor  to  Boniface. 
(Spicil,  i.  8ox.)  See  Innocent’s  explana¬ 
tions.  Ib.  802. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1404. 


INNOCENT  VII. 


241 


oath  that,  if  chosen,  he  would  labour  in  all  possible  ways 
for  the  healing  of  the  schism,  and,  if  necessary,  would 
even  resign  his  office ;  but  the  value  of  such  oaths  had 
by  this  time  come  to  be  generally  understood. 

Innocent  VII.  was  a  native  of  the  Neapolitan  king¬ 
dom.  He  had  been  eminent  as  a  canonist,  had  been 
employed  by  Urban  VI.  as  collector  of  the  papal  revenue 
in  England,  and  had  afterwards  been  promoted  to  the 
bishoprick  of  Bologna.u  In  himself  he  was  a  mild  and 
unassuming  old  man,  free  from  the  pontifical  vice  of 
rapacity,  an  enemy  to  the  pontifical  practice  of  simony, 
and  most  especially  desirous  of  a  quiet  and  easy  life.x 
Ele  attempted  to  begin  a  reform  by  making  his  secretaries 
dismiss  their  concubines ; y  but  the  greed  and  the  am¬ 
bition  of  his  kinsmen  were  too  strong  for  him,  and  abuses 
which  Innocent  had  at  first  reprobated  were  afterwards 
adopted  into  his  own  practice.2  His  short  pontificate, 
while  uneventful  in  other  respects,  was  full  of  trouble  for 
himself.  The  Romans  attempted  to  recover  the  power 
which  Boniface  had  wrested  from  them  ; a  the  Colonnas 
renewed  the  turbulence  by  which  their  family  had  been 
marked  under  earlier  pontificates  ;  b  above  all,  Ladislaus 
of  Naples  played  an  equivocal  and  alarming  part.  To 
the  scheming  and  perfidy  of  John  Galeazzo  Visconti, 
Ladislaus  added  the  quality  of  personal  courage  ;  he  was 
animated  by  an  ambition  which  exceeded  that  of  John 
Galeazzo,  so  as  even  to  aspire  to  the  imperial  dignity  ;c 


1  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  1274 ;  Gobel.  Pers. 
323  ;  Antonin.  460. 
u  Th.  Niem,  ii.  39. 
x  lb.  ;  Leonard.  Aretin.  in  Murat, 
xix.  922. 

y  Th.  Niem,  ii.  4. 
z  lb. ;  Nemus  Unionis,  vi.  39. 
a  Th.  Niem,  ii.  34,  seqq.  Gobelin 
Persona  says  that  Innocent  gave  it  up 
to  them,  and  that  therefore  they  be¬ 
came  insubordinate.  324. 

VOL.  VII. 


b  Leon.  Aretin.  922. 
c  Th.  Niem,  Nemus  Unionis,  vi.  31, 
p.  350 ;  Gobel.  Pers.  326 ;  Sism.  vi. 
123.  When  in  possession  of  Rome  in 
1408,  Ladislaus  had  his  robe  em¬ 
broidered  with  the  words,  “  Aut  Caesar 
aut  nihil.”  But  Giannone  is  mistaken 
in  saying  that  he  styled  himself  “  Rex 
Romae,”  as  the  real  word  was  Ramae, 
meaning  Rama  in  Dalmatia.  Gre- 
gorov.  vi.  582. 


l6 


242 


INNOCENT  VII.  AND  LADISLAUS. 


Book  VIII. 


and,  while  affecting  to  protect  the  pope,  there  was  reason 
to  believe  that,  with  a  view  to  his  own  interest,  he  secretly 
incited  the  citizens  of  Rome  to  rebellion.*1  In  August 
1405  Innocent  was  driven  to  Viterbo,  chiefly  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  act  of  his  nephew,  who  had  treacherously 
put  to  death  eleven  deputies  of  the  Romans ; e  and  for 
a  time  John  Colonna,  who  professed  to  be  in  the  interest 
of  Avignon,  was  master  of  Rome,  being  ironically  styled 
John  the  Twenty-third. f  But  after  some  months  the 
Romans  found  it  expedient  to  recall  their  pope,  offering 

him  all  the  power  which  had  been  enjoyed 
March  1  ^  J  " 

by  Boniface ;  and  Innocent  returned  in  March 

1406.2  He  denounced  Ladislaus  as  a  perjured  traitor, 

declared  him  to  be  deprived  of  the  kingdoms  which  he 

Tune  iS  ^eld  under  the  Roman  see,  and  proclaimed 

a  crusade  against  the  Colonnas.h  Ladislaus, 

in  order  to  propitiate  the  pope,  surrendered  the  castle  of 

St.  Angelo  to  him,  and  a  treaty  was  concluded  by  which 

the  king  took  an  oath  of  fealty,  and  was  appointed 

standard-bearer  of  the  Roman  church.1  But  before  this 

measure  had  produced  any  considerable  effect,  Innocent 

died  on  the  6th  of  November  in  the  year  of  his  return. k 

It  is  said  that  he  had  intended  to  call  a  general  council 

with  a  view  to  the  reunion  of  the  church,  but  that  the 

troubles  of  his  pontificate  prevented  the  execution  of  this 

design.1 

The  Roman  cardinals,  after  some  hesitation  whether 
they  should  elect  a  successor,  went  through  the  form  of 
choosing  a  pope  under  a  promise  that  he  would  resign  if 


d  Leon.  Aret.  921  ;  Antonin.  460 ; 
Th.  Niem,  ii.  37  ;  Gibbon,  vi.  391  ; 
Sism.  v.  108  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  544-9. 

e  Th.  Niem.  ii.  36;  Nemus  Unionis, 
vi.  32,  p.  353  ;  Leon.  Aret.  922-4  ;  Go- 
bel.  Pers.  324  ;  Anton.  Petri,  in  Murat, 
xxiv.  976-7  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  562. 

'  Th.  Niem,  ii.  36;  Antonin.  461. 


g  Th.  Niem,  ii.  38;  Leon.  Aret.  924; 
Antonin.  462  :  Mansi,  in  Rayn.  viii. 
154;  Gregorov.  vi.  567. 

h  Anton.  Petri,  in  Murat,  xxiv.  979  ; 
Th.  Niem,  ii.  41 ;  Gregorov.  vi.  567. 

1  Rayn.  1406.  7. 
k  \nton.  Petri,  980. 

1  Gobel.  Pers.  324. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1405-6. 


GREGORY  XII. 


243 


the  benefit  of  the  church  should  require  it,  and  that  he 
would  invite  his  rival  of  Avignon  to  join  with  him  in  this 
sacrifice  of  private  interest  to  the  cause  of  unity ; m  and 
thus,  says  Leonard  of  Arezzo,  the  person  to  be  elected 
was  to  regard  himself  rather  as  a  proctor  for  resigning 
the  papacy  than  as  a  pope.  The  election  fell  on  Angelo 
Corario,  cardinal  of  St.  Mark  and  titular  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  who  styled  himself  Gregory  XII.  Gregory 
was  a  man  of  seventy,  greatly  respected  for  piety,  learn¬ 
ing,  and  prudence.11  It  was  he  who  had  proposed  the 
engagement  by  which  the  cardinals  had  bound  themselves 
before  the  election  ;  and  it  was  believed  that  the  straight¬ 
forward  honesty  which  was  supposed  especially  to  mark 
his  character  would  secure  his  zealous  performance  of 
the  obligation.0  Theodoric  of  Niem,  however,  who  held 
an  office  in  his  court,  speaks  of  him  as  a  dissembler,  a 
wolf  in  sheep’s  clothing ; p  and  although  this  unfavourable 
representation  may  have  been  partly  caused  by  some 
personal  enmity,  the  writer’s  statements  have  an  appear¬ 
ance  of  truth  which  has  won  general  belief  for  them/ 
Gregory  began  by  professing  an  intense  desire  for  the 
reunion  of  the  church.  He  renewed  the  oath  by  which 
he  had  bound  himself  to  resign  for  the  sake  of  this 
object/  He  wrote  to  urge  the  duty  of  cession  on  Bene¬ 
dict  in  terms  which  were  entirely  inoffensive,  except  that 


m  Leon.  Aretin.  925  ;  Th.  Niem,  iii. 
3  ;  Nemus  Unionis,  i.  1  ;  Th.  Vrie,  in 
V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  134  ;  Mon.  Sandion. 
xxvii.  19;  Juv.  des  Urs.  188  ;  Antonin. 
468 ;  Cron,  di  Lucca,  in  Murat,  xviii. 
877 ;  Dach.  Spied,  i.  815. 
n  Leon.  Aret.  925-6  ;  Antonin.  468. 

0  Th.  Niem,  iii.  1  ;  Leon.  Aret. 
925-6. 

P  “  Cum  sit  hypocrita  insignis.”  iii. 
6 ;  cf.  ii.  12,  seqq.  ;  Nemus  Unionis, 
passim.  Theodoric  says  that  the  four 
popes  from  Urban  VI.  to  Gregory 
“eleemosynas  non  dederunt,  quod  est 


signum  damnationis  et  pessimum  in 
prselatis.”  As  to  his  private  tastes,  we 
are  told  by  another  writer  that  Gre¬ 
gory  “plus  in  zucaro  consumebat  quam 
sui  praedecessores  in  victu  et  vestitu.” 
(Murat.  III.  ii.  838.)  There  are  letters 
of  Gregory  in  Mart.  Coli.  Ampl.  vii. 
726,  seqq. 

1  Schrockh,  xxxi.  333 ;  Milm.  iv. 
445- 

r  Mon.  Sandion.  t.  iii.  p.  496 ;  Leon. 
Aret.  925  ;  Antonin.  1.  c.  This  renewal 
had  been  part  of  the  original  engage¬ 
ment.  Rayn.  1406.  12. 


.  244  NEGOTIATIONS  BETWEEN  GREGOk*  XII. 


Book  VIII. 


the  Avignon  pope’s  right  to  the  title  was  questioned  in  the 
superscription;8  and  Benedict,  adopting  his  rival’s  style 
of  address,  offered  in  return  to  take  his  cardinals  with 
him  to  a  conference,  and  to  resign  if  Gregory  would  do 
the  like.1  Gregory  professed  himself  to  be  like  the  true 
mother,  who  was  ready  to  give  up  her  child  rather  than 
suffer  it  to  be  divided ;  he  declared  that  for  the  sake  of 
re-establishing  unity  in  the  church  he  was  willing  to  go  to 
any  place,  however  remote ;  that  if  ships  were  not  to  be 
had,  he  would  put  to  sea  in  a  little  boat ;  that  if  he  could 
find  no  horses,  he  would  go  on  foot  with  a  staff  in  his 
hand.u  It  was  only  feared  that  he  might  not  live  long 
enough  to  carry  his  noble  designs  into  effects  But  even 
if  these  professions  were  sincere,  Gregory  was  under 
influences  which  made  it  impossible  for  him  to  act  on 
them.  His  nephews  and  other  relations  exerted  themselves 
to  prevent  an  abdication  which  would  have  destroyed 
their  importance  and  their  wealth ;  y  while  Ladislaus 
of  Naples  was  resolved  to  oppose  a  reconciliation  which 
was  likely  in  any  case  to  tell  against  him,  and  which,  if 
it  should  be  followed  by  the  establishment  of  a  French 
pope,  would  have  involved  the  acknowledgment  of  a 
French  pretender  to  the  Neapolitan  throne.2  Ladislaus, 
therefore,  harassed  Rome  by  a  succession  of  attacks 
which — perhaps  through  an  understanding  with  Gregory 
or  with  his  nephews a — were  so  timed  and  conducted  as 


*  “  Petro  de  Luna,  quem  nonnullae 
gentes  in  hoc  miserabili  schismate 
Benedictum  XIII.  appellant.”  Th. 
Niem,  iii.  4  ;  Mansi,  xxvi.  1013. 

1  Mon.  Sandion.  t.  xxvii.  20-3 ; 
Mansi,  xxvi.  1014  ;  Antonin.  468. 

u  Th.  Niem,  Nem.  Union,  vi.  11,  p. 
309  ;  cf.  De  Schism,  iii.  4  ;  Leon.  Aret. 
925.  Theodoric  says  that  Errorius  (as 
he  styles  Gregory),  in  sending  letters 
in  favour  of  union  to  prelates  and  lay 
potentates,  usually  employed  Lollards 
or  Beghards,  “ad  quos  semper  vide- 


batur  ej  us  affectio  specialiter  inclinari.  ” 
iii.  6.  x  Th.  Niem,  iii.  6. 

y  lb.  16,  21 ;  Nem.  Union,  iv.  1-2  ; 
vi.  7-8  ;  Leon.  Aret.  926.  For  letters  of 
Charles  VI.  exhorting  Gregory  to 
peace,  a.d.  1407,  see  Dach  Spied,  i. 
803. 

z  Leon.  Aret.  Ep.  ii.  6,  ap.  Rayn. 
1407.  4  ;  Th.  Niem,  iii.  15,  18  ;  Nem. 
Union,  iv.  6;  Sism.  R.  I.  114;  Gre- 
gorov.  v.  579,  seqq. 

a  This  was  suspected  at  the  time. 
Th.  Niem,  Nem.  Union,  iv.  2  ;  Sozoin. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1406-7.  AND  BENEDICT  XIII. 


245 


to  afford  pretexts  for  delaying  the  attempts  at  a  recon¬ 
ciliation  ;  he  even  got  possession  of  the  city  in  April 
1408,  and  remained  there  until  the  end  of  June.b 

Benedict,  in  answer  to  Gregory’s  overtures,  proposed  a* 
meeting,  and  after  much  negotiation,  and  many  attempts 
at  evasion  on  the  part  of  the  Roman  pope,0  it  was  agreed 
that  it  should  take  place  at  Savona,  on  the  Gulf  of 
Genoa,  between  Michaelmas  and  All  Saints’  Day  i40  7.d 
The  terms  were  arranged  with  elaborate  precaution  for 
the  security  of  the  parties,e  and  Gregory  at  length  set 
out  as  if  for  the  purpose  of  fulfilling  his  engage  nent. 
But  when  he  had  reached  Lucca,  he  professed  to  feel 
apprehensions  and  difficulties  which  must  prevent  his 
appearance  at  Savona  ;f  and  Benedict,  on  being  in¬ 
formed  of  this,  endeavoured  to  gain  for  himself  the  repu¬ 
tation  of  greater  sincerity  by  going  on  as  far  as  Porto 
Venere,  near  Spezzia.s  As  Benedict  advanced,  Gregory 
retreated.  It  was,  says  Leonard  of  Arezzo,  as  if  one 
pope,  like  a  land  animal,  refused  to  approach  the 
shore,  and  the  other,  like  an  inhabitant  of  the  sea, 
refused  to  leave  the  water.h  And  Theodoric  of  Niem 
tells  us  that  the  project  of  a  conference  was  generally 
compared  to  a  tilting-match,  in  which  it  is  under¬ 
stood  that  the  champions  are  not  to  touch  each  other, 
but  are  merely  to  display  themselves  before  the  spec- 


Pistor.  in  Murat,  xvi.  1192  ;  Antonin. 
472. 

b  Th.  Niem,  De  Schism,  iii.  18,  29 ; 
Id.  ad  Rupertum  regem,  in  Goldast, 
ii.  1381 ;  Anton.  Petri,  in  Murat,  xxiv. 
990 ;  Antonin.  472-3  ;  Sism.  R.  I.  vi. 
116;  Gregorov.  vi.  581-3. 
c  Mon.  Sandion.  xxviii.  18-19. 
u  Letters  in  N.  de  Clemang.  179, 
seqq. ;  Theod.  Niem,  iii.  5,  13  ;  Mart. 
Thes.  ii.  1366,  seqq.  ;  Mon.  Sandion. 
xxviii.  1-25. 

Th.  Niem,  Nem.  Union,  i.  10;  Cron, 
di  Lucca,  in  Murat,  xviii.  878-81  ; 


Mart.  Thes.  ii.  1314. 

f  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  759,  seqq.  ; 
Th.  Niem,  iii.  14,  17,  19;  Nem.  Union, 
iii  217,  seqq.;  iv.  2,  5 ;  v. ;  vi.  2,  3; 
Mansi,  xxvii.  77.  See  the  reasons  set 
forth  from  the  pulpit  at  Siena  on  All 
Saints’  Day  (Nem.  Union,  iv.  7). 

s  Th.  Niem,  iii.  21,  26-8  ;  N.  Cle¬ 
mang.  182 ;  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii. 
758.  Benedict  reproaches  Gregory 
for  having  given  him  the  siip.  Mansi, 
xxvi.  1018.  See  Schwab,  200,  seqq. 

h  Murat,  xix.  926  ;  cf.  Sozom.  Pis- 
tor.  ib.  xvi.  1191. 


246 


FRENCH  NATIONAL  ASSEMBLY. 


Book  VIII. 


tators.1  The  scandal  presented  by  the  intrigues  and 
insincerity  of  the  two  aged  men,  each  of  whom  professed 
to  claim  the  holiest  office  in  Christendom,  with  the 
mysterious  blessings  and  prerogatives  attached  to  the  see 
of  St.  Peter,  excited  general  disgust, k  and  it  was  com¬ 
monly  believed  that  they  had  made  a  secret  agreement 
to  prolong  the  schism  for  their  own  benefit.1 

France  had  again  become  impatient  of  the  pretexts 
under  which  a  reconciliation  was  continually  deferred. 
In  July  1406,  after  a  warm  discussion  in  the  parliament 
of  Paris,  a  letter  of  the  university  of  Toulouse  in  behalf 
of  Benedict  had  been  condemned  as  derogatory  to  the 
honour  of  the  king ;  and  it  had  been  decreed  that  the 
original  should  be  burnt  at  Toulouse,  and  copies  on  the 
bridge  of  Avignon,  at  Montpellier,  and  at  Lyons.m  In 
November  of  the  same  year  a  great  national  assembly 
was  held  under  the  presidency  of  the  titular  patriarch  of 
Alexandria.11  All  agreed  that  a  general  council  was 
necessary  for  the  solution  of  the  difficulties  which  had 
arisen,  and  after  long  and  full  discussions  it 
e  .  1  ,  i4°7-  was  resoived  that  obedience  should  be  again 
withdrawn  from  Benedict,  unless  within  a  certain  time  he 
should  come  to  an  agreement  with  his  rival.  The  publi¬ 
cation  of  this  resolution,  however,  was  not  to  be  immediate, 
but  was  to  be  determined  by  circumstances.0  The  king 


*  Nem.  Union,  vi.  12. 
k  Theodoric  of  Niem  compares  them 
to  the  two  elders  of  Babylon,  “e  qui- 
bus  progressa  est  iniquitas"  (Daniel, 
xiii.  5).  ii.  42 ;  cf.  iii.  23 ;  Theod. 
Vrie  in  Von  der  Hardt,  i.  146.  St. 
Antoninus,  however,  draws  a  distinc¬ 
tion  : — “  Erat  enim  ille  Benedictus, 
etsi  litteratus,  callidissimus  hominum, 
versipellis,  et  suis  astutiis  ut  anguilla 
de  manibus  stringentis  elapsa,  lubricus 
et  versatilis.  Gregorius  autem  ut  agnus 
innocens,  et  sine  felle  columba.”  He 
says  that  Gregory  backed  out  of  the 


conference  because  he  saw  that  Bene¬ 
dict  was  insincere.  P.  468. 

1  Martin,  v.  501.  They  are  charged 
with  collusion  by  the  cardinals  at  Pisa. 
Art.  15,  in  Rayn.  1409.  56. 

m  Mon.  Sandion.  xxvii.  3  ;  Lib.  de 
l’Egl.  Gall.  ii.  471-7;  Bourg.  de  Chast. 
Append.  234-40 ;  Bui.  v.  120-6. 

“  See  Mon.  Sandion.  xxvii.  17.  For 
an  appeal  of  the  university  of  Paris 
against  Benedict,  Jan.  1406,  see  Mart. 
Thes.  ii.  1245. 

0  Mansi,  xxvi.  io2i;Th.  Niem,Nem. 
Union,  i.  7  ;  Bourg.  de  Chast.  Ap- 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1406-7.  BENEDICT  AGAIN  RENOUNCED. 


247 


Nov.  23,  1407. 


soon  after  despatched  an  embassy  to  both  popes,  but 
neither  Benedict  nor  Gregory  could  be  persuaded  to 
resign,  and  the  agreement  for  the  meeting  at  Savona  had 
already  been  concluded  between  them.p 

About  the  time  when  the  failure  of  that  scheme 
became  known,  Benedict  lost  his  most  power-^ 
ful  friend,  the  duke  of  Orleans,  who  was  as¬ 
sassinated  in  the  streets  of  Paris  through  the  contrivance 
of  his  cousin,  John  the  Fearless,  duke  of  Burgundy. q  The 
irritation  of  the  French  soon  after  manifested  itself  in  a 
declaration  of  renewed  subtraction  from  Benedict  and 
of  neutrality  between  the  claimants  of  the  papacy ;  but 
although  this  was  communicated  to  the  two  rivals,  and 
although  the  king  exerted  himself  to  draw  other  sovereigns 
into  the  same  policy,  the  document  was  not  yet  formally 
published.1-  Benedict,  perhaps  encouraged  by  the  dis¬ 
tresses  which  he  saw  gathering  around  his 
rival,  replied  in  April  1408  by  sending  to 
Paris  two  bulls.  The  first  of  these,  dated  eleven  months 
earlier,  was  intended  to  counteract  the  decisions  of  the 
French  national  council  by  excommunicating  all  persons, 
of  whatever  rank,  who  should  take  part  against  the  pope, 
interdicting  the  territories  of  princes  who  should  oppose 
him,  and  releasing  their  subjects  from  allegiance;3  the 
second  bull,  dated  in  April  1408,  was  conceived  in  a  tone 
rather  of  complaint  than  of  anger,  but  warned  the  king 
that  by  persistence  in  his  unkindness  towards  Benedict 
he  would  incur  the  penalties  of  the  earlier  build 

But  the  French  were  no  longer  disposed  to  endure 
such  threats.  At  a  great  assembly  of  nobles,  ecclesiastics, 


April  18. 


pend.  95,  seqq. ;  Gerson,  ii.  103-5;  Juv. 
des  Urs.  181-8 ;  Bui.  vi.  133,  seqq. ; 
Hefele,  vi.  753-7.  See  Nic.  de  Cle- 
mang.  Ep.  17,  to  the  king,  against  a 
second  withdrawal. 

p  Juv.  des  Urs.  188;  Hefele,  vi. 
761-6. 


Monstrelet,  i.  210. 
r  Mon.  Sandion.  t.  iv.  26-8  ;  Mart. 
Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  770.  For  the  regula¬ 
tions  of  the  French  church  during  the 
neutrality  see  Mon.  Sandion.  1.  xxix. 
8-10.  3  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  804. 

*  Bui.  v.  158. 


Book  VIII. 


248  FLIGHT  OF  BENEDICT. 


representatives  of  the  university,  and  lawyers,  John 
Courtecuisse,  an  eminent  divine,  made  a 
May  21, 140  discourse,  in  which  he  charged  Benedict 

with  heresy  and  schism,  with  trifling  and  insincerity  in 
negotiating  with  his  rival,  and  with  having  shown  himself 
an  enemy  of  all  Christendom  by  hindering  the  reunion 
of  the  cburch.u  The  bull  of  excommunication  was  cut 
by  the  king’s  secretary  into  two  parts,  of  which  one  was 
given  to  the  princes  and  councillors,  and  the  other  to  the 
representatives  of  the  university,  and  they  were  then  torn 
into  small  pieces  and  burnt.*  The  messengers  who  had 
conveyed  the  bulls  were  pilloried  and  imprisoned  ;  the 
archbishop  of  Reims  and  other  dignitaries,  who  were 
suspected  of  having  been  privy  to  the  bull,  were  arrested, 
The  neutrality  of  France  was  now  proclaimed,  and  the 
pope  was  publicly  denounced  as  guilty  of  heresy  and 
schism.y  Orders  were  sent  to  Marshal  Boucicaull, 
governor  of  Genoa  (which  was  then  subject  to  the  French 
crown),  that  Peter  de  Luna  should  be  made  prisoner 
until  he  should  conclude  a  real  peace  with  his  rival ;  but 
Benedict  took  the  alarm,  and,  after  having  issued  declara¬ 
tions  against  the  conduct  of  the  French  king  and  others, 
he  made  his  escape  by  sea  from  Porto  Venere  and  took 
lip  his  abode  at  Perpignan.2 

In  the  meantime  Gregory  had  begun  to  distrust  his 
own  cardinals,  who  urged  him  to  resign. a  Fearing  lest 


u  Lib.  de  l’Egl.  Gall.  ii.  33,  485  : 
Mon.  Sandion.  t.  iv.  10-12 ;  Monstrel. 
i.  342.  Courtecuisse  (in  Latin,  Brevis- 
Coxa )  was  elected  bishop  of  Paris  in 
1420  ;  but  was  prevented  by  the  En¬ 
glish  from  taking  possession  of  the  see. 
He  became  bishop  of  Genoa  in  1422, 
and  died  soon  after.  Oudin,  iii.  2257-9. 

x  Lib.  de  l’Egl.  Gall.  11.  cc.  ;  Juv. 
des  Urs.  194 ;  Mon.  Sandion.  t.  iv. 
12-14.  Nicolas  of  Clemanges  vindicates 
himself  from  the  suspicion  of  having 


composed  the  letters  of  excommunica¬ 
tion  against  the  king  and  kingdom  of 
France.  Epp.  42-6  ;  Vita,  190. 

y  Bekynton,  Ep.  251  ;  Lib.  de  l’Egl. 
Gall.  ii.  485;  Bui.  v.  160-70;  Schwab, 
210.  The  monk  of  St.  Denys,  although 
opposed  to  Benedict,  speaks  with  much 
disgust  of  this  affair,  t.  iv.  58-60. 

z  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  803,  813 ;  Th. 
Niem,  Nem.  Union,  vi.  25;  Mon.  San- 
dionys.  iv.  28. 

a  It  is  said  that  the  cardinals  offered 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1408.  CARDINALS  SUMMON  A  COUNCIL. 


249 


May  12. 


they  should  take  some  steps  against  him,  he  forbade 
them  to  leave  Lucca  ;  and,  in  disregard  of  the  engage¬ 
ments  by  which  he  had  bound  himself  both  at  his  election 
and  in  correspondence  with  his  rival,  as  well  as  of  the 
remonstrances  which  were  addressed  to  him  by  the  car¬ 
dinals  and  by  many  bishops,  he  announced  an  intention 
of  creating  four  new  cardinals,  of  whom  two 
were  his  own  nephews.b  By  this  step  the 
older  cardinals  were  roused  to  action.  They  refused  to 
acknowledge  those  who  had  been  obtruded  on  them, 
and,  in  defiance  of  Gregory’s  command,  all  but  three, 
who  were  detained  by  sickness,  removed  from  Lucca  to 
Pisa,  where  they  sent  forth  protests  against  the  pope’s 
late  proceedings.0 

The  cardinals  who  had  been  attached  to  Benedict 
now  repaired  to  Leghorn,  where  they  were  May— July, 
met  by  those  of  Gregory’s  party,  and  the  two  I4oS- 
sections  joined  in  issuing  a  summons  for  a  council  to 
meet  at  Pisa  in  March  of  the  following  year.d  In  this 
course  they  were  supported  by  the  universities  of  Florence 
and  Bologna, e  as  well  as  by  that  of  Paris.  They  an¬ 
nounced  their  intentions  to  both  popes,  inviting  them  to 
appear  and  to  resign  their  pretensions,  agreeably  to  the 
engagements  which  they  had  made  at  election  ;  otherwise, 


Gregory  the  patriarchate  of  Constan¬ 
tinople,  the  bishoprick  of  Exeter,  and 
other  preferments  ;  but  that,  among 
other  difficulties,  it  was  found  that 
the  bishoprick  was  not  vacant.  Th. 
JSliem,  Nem.  Union,  iv.  288  ;  cf.  De 
Schism,  iii.  21.  ( Oxoniensem  must  be 

a  mistake  for  Exoniensem,  as  Oxford 
was  not  yet  an  episcopal  see.) 

D  Ciacon.  ii.  765-6  ;  Th.  Niem,  iii. 
3  4.  24-5,  31  ;  Nem.  Union,  vi.  33,  pp. 
370-1  ;  Cron,  di  Lucca,  886-7 ;  Gobel. 
Pers.  326.  One  of  these  nephews  was 
afterwards  Eugenius  IV. 

c  Th.  Niem,  iii.  32-3  ;  Nem.  Union. 


vi.  10-1 1 ;  Leon.  Aret.  926 ;  V.  d.  Hardt, 
ii.  65  ;  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  1394. 

d  Dach.  Spied.  809,  811,  8i3  ; 

Mansi,  xxvi.  1161,  1164,  1166,  etc.; 
xxvii.  101, 140,  144,  etc.;  Antonin.  469  ; 
Wilkins,  iii.  298,  seqq. ;  Mart.  Coll. 
Ampl.  vii.  775-8.  (In  the  last-named 
volume  are  many  documents  relating 
to  this  time.)  See  Hefele,  vi.  786. 

e  Gobel.  Pers.  326 ;  Mart.  Coll. 
Ampl.  vii.  893,  937 ;  Antonin.  469. 
Nic.  de  Clemang.  187-9;  Mansi,  xxvi. 
1079;  Th.  Niem,  Nem.  Union,  vi.  15- 
17  ;  Lib.  de  l'Egl.  Gall.  ii.  502. 


250 


RIVAL  COUNCILS. 


Book  VIII, 


it  was  added,  the  council  would  take  its  own  course.1 
Gregory  replied  by  declaring  the  cardinals  to  be  degraded 
and  excommunicate ;  he  professed  to  make  a  new  pro¬ 
motion  to  the  college,  and  announced  an  intention  of 
holding  a  council  of  his  own.g  But  for  this  purpose  it 
was  not  easy  to  find  a  place.  The  authorities  of  his 
native  state,  Venice,  to  whom  he  applied,  advised  him 
rather  to  send  representatives  to  Pisa ;  and  various  towns 
— even  Ephesus,  which  was  then  for  a  time  in  Christian 
hands — were  proposed.1*  At  length,  when  the  council  of 
Pisa  was  far  advanced,  the  Venetians  allowed  Gregory’s 
June 6— Sep.  council  to  be  held  at  Cividale,  in  Friuli; 

5, 1409.  but  it  was  ineffectual  for  any  other  purpose 
than  that  of  showing  his  impotence.* 

Benedict  also  summoned  a  council,  which  met  at 
Perpignan  in  November  1408,  and  was  attended  by  a 
considerable  number  of  prelates,  among  whom  four  had 
been  decorated  by  him  with  the  empty  title  of  patriarch.15 
But  this  assembly,  instead  of  seconding  his  wishes,  almost 
unanimously  advised  him  to  resign,1  and  Benedict  soon 
found  himself  deserted  by  all  but  a  few  of  his  partisans, 
who  themselves  urged  him  to  abdicate  or  to  send  re¬ 
presentatives  to  the  council  which  had  been  summoned 
by  the  cardinals.***  His  indignation  vented  itself  in 
furious  threats  against  those  who  had  thwarted  him,  and 
March  3,  in  declaring  them  all,  from  the  cardinals 
I4°9-  downwards,  to  be  deprived  of  their  dignities 
and  excommunicated.11 


f  Mansi,  xxvi.  1131,  1134, 1161, 1167, 
1175,  1180. 

8  lb.  68,  73  ;  Th.  Niem,  iii.  36,  38  ; 
Nem.  Union,  vi.  19. 

h  Rob.  Celsiniensis  in  Mart.  Coll. 
Ampl.  vii.  1 18. 

*  Mansi,  xxvi.  1085-7,  iio5>  II^3  I 
Hefele,  vi.  897. 

k  Dach.  Spied.  i.  8x3,  822 ;  Mansi, 


xxvi.  1105,  1183  ;  Mariana,  1.  xix.  18  ; 
Lenfant,  Cone,  de  Pise,  ii.  15. 

1  Mansi,  xxvi.  1097-8 ;  Rayn.  1409. 
84.  It  is  said  that  out  of  sixteen  to 
whom  the  matter  was  referred  by  the 
council,  fifteen  were  for  resignation. 
V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1249. 

m  Mariana,  1.  c.;  Hefele,  vi.  852. 

“  Mansi,  xxvi.  1x21  ;  Mart.  Coll. 


CHAr.  V.  A.D.  1408-9.  ASSEMBLY  AT  FRANKFORT. 


25l 


The  emperor  Rupert  had  promised  to  Boniface  IX. 
that  he  would  accept  no  other  solution  of  the  question 
by  which  the  church  was  divided  than  the  suppression  of 
the  papacy  of  Avignon  ;°  and  Gregory  had  conciliated 
him  by  declaring  that,  while  the  right  of  summoning 
general  councils  belonged  to  the  pope,  the  emperor,  as 
general  advocate  of  the  church,  was  more  entitled  to 
take  such  a  part  than  the  cardinals.  At  a  great  assembly, 
which  was  held  at  Frankfort  in  January  1409,  a  cardinal 
appeared  on  behalf  of  the  Pisan  cardinals,  and  cardinal 
Antony  Corario,  Gregory’s  nephew,  as  representative  ot 
his  uncle.  Rupert,  whose  leaning  to  the  interest  of 
Gregory  was  manifest,  agreed  to  send  representatives  to 
Pisa,  but  declared  that  he  would  not  forsake  the  pope 
unless  convinced  that  Gregory  had  forfeited  his  support 
by  misconduct.  But  in  this  feeling  the  majority  of  the 
assembly  did  not  concur. p 

The  obstinacy  with  which  the  rival  popes  clung  to  their 
pretensions,  the  manifest  insincerity  of  their  professions 
as  to  a  desire  for  unity,  the  charges  with  which  they 
mutually  blackened  each  other,  produced  an  increasing 
effect  on  the  minds  of  men  ;  and,  as  the  hope  of  their 
voluntary  resignation  vanished,  the  idea  of  a  general 
council  as  an  expedient  for  healing  the  schism  gained 
ground.  Among  those  who,  after  having  favoured  the 
scheme  of  resignation,  adopted  that  of  referring  the 
matter  to  a  council,  the  most  eminent  for  abilities,  repu¬ 
tation,  and  activity  was  John  Charlier,  whose  surname 
is  usually  superseded  by  the  name  of  his  native  place, 
Gerson,  a  village  near  Rethel,  in  Champagne.*1  Gerson, 


Ampl.  vii.  981.  To  one  he  said,  “  I 
will  put  you  into  a  place  where  you  will 
perhaps  never  see  the  sun.”  V.  d. 
Hardt,  iv.  1250. 

0  Boniface  had  endeavoured  to  get 
from  Rupert,  as  a  condition  of  sanction¬ 
ing  his  election,  an  oath  that  he  would 


not  interfere  in  the  question  of  the 
schism.  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  Praef. 
61. 

p  Gobel.  Pers.  327  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi: 
354- 

Schwab,  228. 


252 


JOHN  GERSON. 


Book  VIII. 


born  in  1363,  had  studied  under  Peter  d’Ailly  and  Giles 
Deschamps,  and  in  1395  had  succeeded  his  old  master 
d’Ailly  as  chancellor  of  Paris  and  professor  in  the  uni¬ 
versity.1'  The  opinions  which  he  had  now  formed  as  to 
the  manner  of  ending  the  schism  were  expressed  in  various 
writings,  especially  in  a  tract  “  Of  the  Unity  of  the  Church,” 
and  in  one  “  De  Auferibilitate  Papae.”8  He  believed  the 
authority  of  the  church  to  reside  in  the  whole  catholic 
body,  and  in  a  general  council  as  its  representative.  He 
supposed  that,  although  the  power  of  convoking  general 
councils  had  in  later  times  been  exercised  by  the  popes 
alone,  the  church  might  resume  it  in  certain  circumstances; 
that  this  might  be  properly  done  in  the  case  of  a  division 
between  rival  popes  ;  and  that  in  such  a  case  a  council 
might  be  summoned,  not  only  by  the  cardinals,  but  by 
faithful  laymen.1  He  held  that,  in  case  of  necessity,  the 
church  could  subsist  for  a  time  without  a  visible  head  ; 
he  greatly  mitigated  the  pretensions  which  had  been 
set  up  in  behalf  of  the  papacy;  and,  on  the  whole,  he 
expressed  far  more  distinctly  than  any  one  who  had 
written  since  the  appearance  of  the  false  decretals,  that 
theory  of  the  church  to  which  the  name  of  Gallican 
has  been  given  in  later  times. u  Yet  Gerson  had  been 
unable  to  take  part  with  the  university  in  its  extreme  pro¬ 
ceedings,  and  had  incurred  obloquy  by  the  moderation 
of  his  counsels  at  the  national  assembly  of  i4o6.x  And, 
although  his  influence  was  strongly  felt  in  the  Pisan 
council,  he  himself  was  not  present  at  it.y 

The  council  of  Pisa  met  on  the  25th  of  March  1409, 
in  the  cathedral  of  that  city,  which  three  years  before 
had  been  sold  by  its  doge  to  its  old  rivals  and  enemies, 

r  Schwab,  96.  x  Bui.  v.  161  ;  Hefele,  vi.  755  ; 

*  Opera,  t.  ii. ;  Schwab,  228.  Schwab,  228. 

1  Opera,  ii.  1x2-13,  129,  135,  etc.  y  That  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  him 

u  Schrockh,  xxxi.  357 ;  cf.  Pet.  de  present,  and  a  prominent  debater,  see 
Alliacoin  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  1409.  Schwab,  230. 


COUNCIL  OF  PISA. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1409. 


253 


the  Florentines.2  Among  those  who  took  part  in  it 
(although  many  of  them  did  not  arrive  until  later)  were 
twenty-two  cardinals  and  four  titular  patriarchs,  with 
archbishops,  bishops,  abbots  (including  the  heads  of  the 
chief  religious  orders),  envoys  of  many  sovereign  princes, 
proctors  for  cathedral  chapters,  and  a  host  of  masters 
and  doctors  who  represented  the  new  and  powerful  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  universities.51  Henry  IV.  of  England,  who 
had  laboured  for  the  extinction  of  the  schism,  and  had 
practically  enforced  his  counsels  by  detaining  the  pope’s 
revenues  from  England  until  a  reconciliation  should  be 
effected,5  had  taken  order  for  the  representation  of  his 
kingdom  ;  and  at  the  head  of  the  English  members  was 
Robert  Hallam,  bishop  of  Salisbury.0  As  the  cardinals, 
in  their  need  of  support,  were  desirous  to  avoid  the  risk 
of  provoking  jealousies  between  various  classes,  it  was 
arranged  that  all  the  members  should  sit  together  as  one 
house,  and  that  there  should  be  no  distinction  as  to  the 
privilege  of  voting.  Guy  de  Maillesec,  bishop  of  Pales¬ 
trina,  presided  as  senior  cardinal. d 

At  the  opening  of  the  council  a  sermon  was  preached 
by  Peter  Philargi,  cardinal  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  and 
archbishop  of  Milan,  who  lamented  the  distractions  ot 
the  church,  and  exhorted  his  hearers  to  take  measures 
for  the  restoration  of  unity.e  At  the  first  session  it  was 
asked  by  proclamation  at  the  doors  of  the  cathedral 


z  Th.  Niem,  ii.  40 ;  iii.  38  ;  Anto¬ 
nin.  465;  Mansi,  xxvi.  1184-5,  1236  ; 
Sism.  R.  I.  v.  1 14  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  590. 
As  to  the  documents  of  the  council, 
see  Hefele,  vi.  853. 

a  Mansi,  xxvi.  1239,  seqq.  ;  Dach. 
Spicil.  i.  853 ;  Mon.  Sandion.  iv.  208  ; 
Hefele,  vi.  855. 

b  Rymer,  viii.  543,  567  ;  Walsingh. 
ii.  280-1. 

c  Rym.  viii.  567  ;  Mansi,  xxvii.  1130  ; 
Gerson.  ii.  123.  Gerson  preached  to 


them  as  they  passed  through  Paris. 
At  the  9th  session,  an  English  adherent 
of  Gregory,  on  making  a  show  of  op¬ 
position,  was  asked  whether  he  had 
a  commission  to  attend,  and,  on  his 
owning  that  he  had  not,  was  turned  out 
“with  confusion.”  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl. 
vii.  1090. 

d  Lenf.  ii.  38  ;  Raumer,  Hist.  Tasch- 
enbuch,  1849,  p.  31. 

e  Mansi,  xxvi.  1x85  ;  xxvii.  18. 


Book  VIII. 


254  COUNCIL  OF  PISA. 


whether  Angelo  Corario  or  Peter  de  Luna  were  present,1 

March  27-30.  either  in  Person  or  by  Proxy  >  and  as  the 
question,  after  having  been  repeated  at  the 

March  30,  secon(}  ancj  third  sessions,  received  no  answer, 
April  the  council,  in  its  third  and  fourth  sessions, 
pronounced  both  the  rivals  to  be  contumacious.g 

The  emperor  Rupert,  although  favourable  to  the  in¬ 
terest  of  Gregory,  had  sent  the  archbishop  of  Riga,  the 
bishops  of  Worms  and  Verden,  and  others,  as  his  am¬ 
bassadors.  At  the  fourth  session,  the  bishop  of  Verden 
brought  forward  twenty-three  objections  to 
Apnl  15.  tjie  course  0f  proceedings;  and  it  was  pro¬ 
posed,  in  the  emperor’s  name,  that  the  council  should  be 
adjourned  to  some  other  place,  where  Gregory  might  be 
able  to  attend.11  But  this  proposal,  which  was  evidently 
intended  to  break  up  the  assembly,  found  no  favour ; 
and  at  a  later  session  the  German  objections  were 
Sess.  vii,  powerfully  exposed  by  Peter  de  Ancorano, 
May  4.  an  eminent  doctor  of  Bologna.1  Meanwhile 
Rupert’s  ambassadors,  finding  the  tone  of  the  council  un¬ 
promising  for  their  master’s  policy,  had  withdrawn,  after 
having  made  an  appeal  to  a  future  general  council,  main¬ 
taining  that  Gregory  was  the  only  legitimate  pope;k  and, 
as  Wenceslaus  acknowledged  the  council,  he  obtained  its 
recognition  in  return,  although  his  want  of  energy  allowed 
.his  advantage  to  remain  unimproved  as  an  aid  towards 

A  ril  24  recovering  the  imperial  dignity.1  At  the 
fifth  session  thirty-eight  charges  were  brought 
forward  against  the  rival  claimants  of  the  papacy,™  and 


f  Mansi,  xxvi.  1186  ;  Dach.  Spicil.  i. 
829. 

*  lb.  Mansi,  xxvi.  1138,  1187. 
h  lb.  1188;  xxvii.  10;  Th.  Niem, 
iii.  39;  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  379-80;  Lenf. 
Cone,  de  Pise,  ii.  29. 

1  Mansi,  xxvii.  367,  seqq.  ;  Mon. 
Sandion.  t.  iv.  224 ;  Hefele,  vi.  858. 


k  Mansi,  xxvi.  1139  ;  xxvii.  10  ;  Th. 
Niem,  iii.  39 ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  361-4  ; 
Schwab,  234. 

1  Martene,  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  892-; 
Palacky,  Docum.  Mag.  J.  Hus,  364- 
70 ;  Hefele,  vi.  800,  877 ;  Schmidt, 
iv.  78-9. 

m  “  Contcndentes,  seu  verius  collu- 


BENEDICT  AND  GREGORY. 


Chap.  V.  a.d.  1409. 


255 


at  the  tenth  session  a  commission  which  had  heard  evi¬ 
dence  in  support  of  these  charges  made  its 
report.  The  opinions  of  the  universities  of  May  22' 
Paris,  Angers,  Orleans,  Toulouse,  Bologna,  and  Florence 
were  alleged  in  favour  of  the  proposed  course,11  and  at 
the  fifteenth  session  it  was  declared  that  both 
were  guilty,  as  notorious  schismatics,  obstinate  Une 
and  incorrigible  heretics,  perjurers,  and  vow-breakers;  that 
by  these  and  other  offences  they  had  scandalized  the  whole 
church,  and  had  rendered  themselves  unworthy  of  any 
dignity.  The  sentence  of  the  council,  which  was  solemnly 
pronounced  by  the  titular  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  while 
his  brethren  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  stood  on  each  side 
of  him,  condemned  both  Benedict  and  Gregory  to  be  de¬ 
posed  and  cut  off  from  the  church  ;  the  sentences  uttered 
by  them  were  declared  to  be  null,  their  nominations  of 
cardinals  since  the  spring  of  the  preceding  year,  when  they 
had  ceased  to  labour  for  union  by  means  of  cession,  to 
be  invalid ;  and  it  was  added  that,  if  either  of  them 
should  despise  this  sentence,  he  and  his  partisans  should 
be  coerced  by  the  secular  power.0  Thus,  although  the 
cardinals,  who  summoned  the  council,  could  not  have 
entered  on  the  investigation  of  the  schism  without  ex¬ 
posing  themselves  to  fatal  questions, — inasmuch  as  every 
member  of  the  college  had  either  shared  in  the  election 
of  one  or  other  of  the  rivals,  or  owed  his  appointment  to 
one  or  other  of  them, — the  council  itself  assumed  the 
right  to  decide  the  matter,  in  absolute  disregard  of  the 
pretension  which  had  been  maintained  for  centuries,  that 
the  pope  could  not  be  judged  by  man  except  in  the  case 
of  manifest  heresy. 


dentes,  de  papatu.”  See  Mansi,  xxvi. 
ngS,  1219  ;  xxvii.  22. 

11  Dach.  Spicil.  i.  833-46  ;  Mart.  Coll. 
Ampl.  vii.  1094. 

0  Mansi,  xxvi.  1146-8, 1225-8  ;  xxvii. 


27,  seqq.:  Martene,  Coll.  Ampl.  vii. 
1095-8  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  136 ;  Dach. 
Spicil.  i.  847  ;  Th.  Niem,  ii.  44.  Bene¬ 
dict  is  said  to  have  made  two  new  car¬ 
dinals  on  hearing  of  this  sentence,  ib.45. 


256 


COUNCIL  OF  PISA. 


Cook  VIII, 


June  14. 


At  the  eighteenth  session  some  envoys  of  the  king  of 
Aragon  appeared,  and  one  of  them,  on  speak¬ 
ing  of  Benedict  as  pope,  was  assailed  with 
hisses  and  mockery. p  The  council,  however,  out  of 
respect  for  the  king’s  intercession,  agreed  to  give  an 
audience  to  certain  representatives  of  Peter  de  Luna ; 
but  on  the  entrance  of  these,  an  outcry  was  raised 
against  them  “as  if  they  had  been  Jews”;  and  when 
one  of  them,  the  archbishop  of  Tarragona,  gave  the  title 
of  pope  to  Benedict,  there  was  a  general  outburst  of 
derision,  with  cries  that  the  speaker  was  the  envoy  of  a 
heretic  and  schismatic.  The  archbishop  was  silenced, 
and,  with  his  companions,  immediately  left  Pisa.q 

It  had  become  evident  to  all  discerning  men  that  the 
extinction  of  the  schism  would  be  no  sufficient  cure  for 
the  prevailing  evils,  unless  accompanied  by  a  reform  of 
the  church,  “both  in  head  and  in  members.”  With  a 
view  to  this,  each  of  the  cardinals,  before  proceeding  to 
the  election  of  a  pope,  pledged  himself  that,  if  he  should 
be  chosen,  he  would  continue  the  council  until  a  “  due, 
reasonable,  and  sufficient  reformation”  should  be  effected; 
and  it  was  agreed  that,  if  the  election  should  fall  on  any 
one  who  was  not  then  present,  a  like  pledge  should  be 
required  of  him.r  On  the  15th  of  June,  twenty-two  car¬ 
dinals  entered  the  conclave,  and,  after  eleven 
days  of  deliberation,  they  announced  that 
their  choice  had  fallen  on  the  cardinal-archbishop  of 
Milan, s  who,  as  we  have  seen,  had  preached  at  the 
opening  of  the  council.  Peter  Philargi  was  a  native  of 
Candia,  and  had  never  known  his  parents  or  any  other 
relation.  When  begging  his  bread  in  childhood,  he 
attracted  the  notice  of  a  Franciscan  friar,  and,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  this  patron’s  kindness,  he  became  a  member  of 


June  26. 


p  Mansi,  xxvi.  1150. 
<1  lb. 


*  lb.  iisi;Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  1115  ; 
r  lb.  1149.  Cron,  di  Bologna,  in  Murat,  xviii.  597. 


Chap.  VI. 


ANTIPAPALISM  OF  ENGLAND. 


257 


the  same  order.  He  had  studied  at  Paris  and  at  Oxford, 
and  was  much  esteemed  for  his  theological  learning.1 
As  pope,  he  took  the  name  of  Alexander  V.u 


CHAPTER  VI. 

WYCLIF. 

We  have  seen  that,  ever  since  the  submission  of  John  of 
England  to  Innocent  III.,  a  spirit  of  disaffection  towards 
the  papacy  had  been  growing  in  the  minds  of  the  English 
people,  who  held  themselves  degraded  by  their  sovereign’s 
humiliation ;  that  the  popes  throughout  the  thirteenth 
century  had  unwisely  provoked  this  spirit  by  their  exor¬ 
bitant  claims  on  the  English  church,  and  by  their  shame¬ 
less  interference  with  the  disposal  of  English  preferment ; 
and  that,  although  the  feeble  Henry  III.  was  afraid  to 
place  himself  at  the  head  of  the  nation  as  the  representa¬ 
tive  of  its  feelings  towards  the  papacy,  the  strong  will 
and  hand  of  Edward  I.  were  exerted  in  opposition  to 
the  Roman  usurpations.  Under  Edward  II.  the  crown 
of  England  again  became  weak ;  but  the  antipapal  spirit 
continued  to  increase  among  the  people,  and  was  swollen 
by  the  circumstance  that  the  popes  at  this  time  took  up 
their  residence  at  Avignon,  and  became  subservient  to 
the  interest  of  France.  While  the  college  of  cardinals 
was  full  of  Frenchmen,  Edward  II.  was  unable  to  obtain, 
by  repeated  entreaties,  that  a  single  Englishman  might 
be  promoted  to  it,  even  although  a  vacancy  had  been 

1  Th.  Niem,  iii.  51  ;  Antonin.  471 ;  nities.  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  873. 
Mon.  Sandion  iv.  240;  Wadding,  ix.  u  Monstrelet  describes  the  rejoicings 

271-3.  Gregory  had  ineffectually  sen-  which  took  place  at  Paris  on  the  elec- 
tenced  him  to  deprivation  of  his  dig-  tion.  ii.  68. 

VOL.  VII.  17 


258 


ANTIPAPAL  SPIRIT 


Book  VIII. 


made  through  the  death  of  an  English  cardinal.®  It  was 
found  that,  in  the  great  war  which  arose  out  of  the  pre¬ 
tensions  of  Edward  III.  to  the  French  crown,  the  popes, 
while  affecting  neutrality,  were  always  favourable  to  the 
opposite  side.b  Edward,  able,  vigorous,  and  successful 
in  war,  was  not  disposed  to  imitate  the  submissiveness 
of  his  feeble  and  unfortunate  father;  and  the  growing 
power  of  the  commons  in  the  legislature  was  strongly 
adverse  to  the  assumptions  of  the  papal  court.® 

Even  the  privileges  of  the  English  clergy  were  now 
becoming  less  than  before.  The  representation  of  their 
grievances  presented  to  Edward  II.  in  1316,  and  known 
by  the  title  of  Articuli  Cleri ,  shows  a  great  practical 
abatement  of  the  system  which  Becket  had  endeavoured 
to  establish;  and  the  answer  which  was  made  in  the 
king's  name,  while  it  admitted  some  points,  refused  to 
concede  others,  and  treated  some  of  the  alleged  griev¬ 
ances  as  imaginary.41  The  immunity  of  the  clergy  from 
secular  authority,  for  which  Becket  had  contended,  was 
greatly  infringed.  When  Adam  of  Orleton, 
ij44-  k}sp0p  0f  Hereford,  was  brought  before  his 
peers  in  parliament,  on  account  of  his  share  in  the  politi¬ 
cal  intrigues  which  had  resulted  in  the  deposition  and 
murder  of  Edward  II.,e  he  was  carried  off,  without  having 
pleaded,  by  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury,  York,  and 
Dublin,  as  if  his  clerical  privilege  exempted  him  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  house.  But  Edward  III.,  instead 


*  Rymer,  ii.  127,  139,  140,  432-3. 
b  After  the  great  successes  of  the 
English,  the  following  lines  were  com¬ 
posed  : — 

“  Ore  est  le  Pape  devenu  Franceys. 

E  Jesu  devenu  Engleys: 

Ore  sera  veou  qe  fra  plus, 

Ly  Pape  ou  Jesus.” 

— Knyghton.  in  Twysd.  X.  Scriptt.  2615. 
c  Pauli,  v.  479. 

d  Wilkins,  iii.  13-14.  One  complaint 


was  that  the  power  of  the  ordinary  over 
the  clergy  was  liable  to  be  invaded  by 
secular  officers.  To  this  it  was  answered 
that  the  pretence  of  the  ordinaries  do¬ 
ing  justice  on  delinquent  clergy  was 
nugatory  ;  that  their  prisons  afforded 
comfortable  living,  with  opportunities 
of  escape  for  those  who  were  not  con¬ 
tent  with  this ;  that  some  were  acquitted 
on  insufficient  evidence,  etc. 
e  See  Pauli,  iv.  299-300,  324. 


CHAF.  VI.  A.D.  T300-70. 


OF  ENGLAND. 


259 


of  relinquishing  the  proceedings  against  the  bishop,  or 
transferring  them  to  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  caused 
him  to  be  tried  by  a  common  jury  of  the  county  in  which 
his  see  was  situated,  and,  on  his  conviction,  confiscated 
his  property.*  When  Stratford,  archbishop  of  Canter¬ 
bury,  was  embroiled  with  the  same  king,  the  ground  on 
which  he  rested  was  not  that  of  the  clerical 
immunities,  but  his  privilege  as  a  lord  of  A’D*  I^4a 
parliament — a  circumstance  significant  of  the  change 
which  had  taken  place  in  the  minds  of  men.g  When 
Simon  Langham,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  had  been 
created  a  cardinal  by  Urban  V.,  without 
having  previously  consulted  the  king,  Ed-  A'D‘ 
ward  seized  the  temporalities  of  the  see,  and  Langham 
submitted  to  spend  the  rest  of  his  days  in  exile,  without 
venturing  to  remonstrate  in  the  tone  of  Becket,  or,  like 
him,  securing  for  himself  the  sympathy  of  all  Latin 
Christendom.11  And  in  the  civil  distractions  which 
marked  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century  in  England, 
the  treatment  of  great  prelates  was  yet  more  regardless 
of  the  pretension  to  exemption  from  secular  judgment.1 
Even  the  claim  of  freedom  from  taxes  had  been  prac¬ 
tically  decided  against  the  clergy  by  Edward  I.,  in  de¬ 
claring  them  to  be  out  of  the  protection  of  the  law ;  and 
all  that  they  retained  of  privilege  in  this  respect  was  the 
right  of  assessing  their  own  order  in  convocation. k 

Collisions  frequently  took  place  between  the  papacy 
and  the  English  crown.  The  popes  took  it  on  them- 


f  Walsingham,  i.  172  ;  Collier,  iii.  50. 
This  was  the  first  instance  of  a  bishop 
tried  before  a  temporal  court.  (Ib.) 
Orleton  afterwards  made  his  peace,  and 
was  translated  successively  to  Wor¬ 
cester  and  Winchester.  The  king  ob¬ 
jected  to  this  last  promotion  as  having 
been  made  by  the  pope  at  the  suit  of 
the  king  of  France,  with  whom  Orleton 
had  ingratiated  himself  when  sent  on 


an  embassy  to  him ;  but  on  being  pe¬ 
titioned  by  the  bishops,  he  acquiesced 
in  it.  Ad.  Murimuth,  72-3. 

s  Birchington  in  Ang.  Sac.  i.  38-40  ; 
Collier,  iii.  89  ;  Lingard,  iii.  121-4  ; 
Hook,  iv.  35,  seqq. 
h  Collier,  iii.  129  ;  Hook,  iv.  211. 

1  Collier,  iii.  89-93  ;  Pauli,  iv.  378. 
See  below,  chap.  xi.  i.  4. 
k  See  vol.  vi.  p.  319  ;  Milm.  v,  4 


26o 


ENGLISH  ANTIPAPALISM. 


Book  VIII. 


selves  to  nominate  bishops,  in  disregard  alike  of  the 
right  of  chapters  to  elect,  and  of  that  of  the  sovereign  to 
permit  and  to  confirm  the  election  ;l  and  in  conferring 
the  spiritual  character  on  new  bishops,  they  omitted  to 
request,  as  had  formerly  been  customary,  that  the  sove¬ 
reign  would  invest  them  in  their  temporalities.  But  in 
order  to  meet  this,  the  kings  compelled  the  bishops  to 
renounce  by  oath  all  things  in  the  papal  letters  which 
might  be  contrary  to  the  rights  of  the  crown,  and  to 
acknowledge  that  the  temporalities  were  held  of  the  sove¬ 
reign  alone.m  And  this  system  of  imposing  contradictory 
obligations  continued  to  later  times. 

The  attempts  to  burden  the  benefices  of  the  English 
church  with  foreigners,  who  were  unacquainted  with  the 
language,  who  were  wanting  in  qualities  suitable  for  their 
office,11  and  probably  never  set  foot  in  the  country, — 
who,  perhaps,  might  also  be  in  the  interest  of  France 
and  opposed  to  that  of  England, — such  at- 

A.D.  1342.  1  1  .  .  ,  , 

tempts,  in  proportion  as  they  became  more 
impudent,  were  more  strongly  resented.0  Thus,  when 


1  Pauli,  iv.  480.  Edward  III.  re¬ 
monstrated  against  this  in  1373.  Wal- 
singh.  i.  316,  etc. 

m  This  practice  is  said  to  have  been 
begun  in  the  case  of  William  of  Gains¬ 
borough  ;  see  vol.  vi.  p.  413.  For  in¬ 
stances,  see  Rymer,  ii.  5,  7,  47,  239, 
422,559,760;  iii.  180,760,833,849,857. 

”  See  Fuller,  ii.  350.  Of  L.  de  Beau¬ 
mont,  who  was  related  to  the  royal 
family  of  France,  Adam  of  Murimuth 
says,  “  Fuit  mediocriter  litteratus,  et 
claudus  utroque  pede,  sicut  sunt  multi 
Francigencz,  quern  si  papa  vidisset, 
forsitan  non  creasset.”  (25.)  (For 
this  bishop’s  ignorance,  rapacity, 
and  prodigality,  see  Ang.  Sac.  i. 
700-1.)  As  to  Reginald  de  Asser, 
bishop  of  Winchester  in  1320,  Marsi- 
lius  of  Padua  says  that  he  and  an  arch¬ 
bishop  of  Lund  were  promoted  by  John 


XXII.  as  being,  like  himself,  natives 
of  Languedoc,  neither  of  them  knowing 
the  language  of  his  flock :  “  quales 
autem  doctrina  et  moribus,  non  mea 
referre  interest.”  Def.  Pacis,  ii.  24. 

0  Edward  III.  remonstrated  strongly. 
See  Rymer,  ii.  801,  803,  807,  etc.  In 
1343  he  wrote  to  the  pope  that  the  En¬ 
glish  church’s  “  dignitates  et  beneficia 
insignia  personis  conferuntur  alieni- 
genis,  plerumque  nobis  suspectis,  qui 
nonresident  indictis  beneficiis,  etvultus 
commissorum  eis  pecorum  non  agnos- 
cunt,  linguam  non  intelligunt,  sed  ani- 
marum  cura  neglecta,  velut  mercenani, 
solummodo  temporalia  lucra  quserunt  ; 
et  sic  diminuitur  Christi  cultus,  anima- 
rum  cura  negligitur,subtrahitur  hospita- 
litas,  ecclesiarum  jura  depereunt,  ruunt 
sedificia  clericorum,  attenuatur  devotio 
popidi,  clerici  dicti  regni  .  ,  .  studium 


Chai\  VI.  a.d.  1300-70.  THE  MENDICANT  ORDERS. 


26  r 


Clement  VI.  took  it  on  himself  to  provide  for  two  car- 
dinals  by  English  benefices  to  the  value  of  2,000  marks 
a-year,  his  agents  were  ordered  to  leave  the  kingdom  ;P 
and  he  was  sternly  warned  against  attempting  by  his  own 
authority  to  assume  the  patronage  of  bishopricks,  or  to 
bestow  patronage  on  any  who  would  not  reside  on  their 
preferments.  The  encroachments  and  abuses  of  the 
papal  court  were  now  met  by  the  legislature  with  the 
statutes  of  provisors q  and  proemunire ,  which  enacted 
heavy  penalties  against  receiving  presentations  from  the 
pope,  and  against  appealing  from  the  king’s  court  to  any 
foreign  tribunal.1. 

Among  the  causes  of  offence  during  this  time,  the  men 
dicant  orders  were  conspicuous  for  their  assumptions  and 
their  rapacity.8  They  attempted,  by  acting  as  confessors 
and  otherwise,  to  engross  all  spiritual  power,  to  the  preju¬ 
dice  of  the  secular  clergy ;  to  divert  to  themselves  the  in 
come  which  the  seculars  were  entitled  to  expect  from  the 
administration  of  penance  and  other  sacraments.  They 
attempted  to  get  into  their  own  hands  all  the  teaching 
of  the  universities,  where  they  enticed  young  men  of 
promise  to  enter  their  ranks,  even  in  defiance  of  the  will 
of  parents ;  and  it  is  said  that,  in  consequence  of  this,  the 
number  of  students  at  Oxford  was  reduced  from  30,000 
to  6,000,  as  men  chose  that  their  sons  should  become 
tillers  of  the  ground  rather  than  that  they  should  be  thus 
carried  off  by  the  friars.1  By  these  and  other  practices, 


deserunt  propter  promotionis  congruae 
spem  ablatam,”  etc.  Rymer,  li.  1233. 

P  Knyghton,  in  Twysd.  2853  ;  Col¬ 
lier,  iii.  96.  Cf.  Ad.  Murimuth,  i.  149, 
157-9- 

There  had  already  been  a  procla¬ 
mation  against  provisors  in  1344. 
Rymer,  iii.  2. 
r  See  below,  chap.  xi.  i.  4. 

8  R.  Armachanus  [Fitzralph]  inGol- 
dast,  ii.  1399 ;  Walsingh.  ii.  13.  See 


also  some  poems  in  Mr.  Wright’s 
‘Political  Songs.’ 

1  Armach.  in  Goldast.  ii.  1398.  Boh- 
ringer  tries  to  account  for  the  astound¬ 
ing  number  of  30,000  by  supposing  that 
it  included  servants,  tradesmen,  etc. 
(Leben  Wiclifs,  8.)  Prof.  Lechler 
(‘Joh.  v.  Wiclif,’  i.  271)  reminds  us  that 
in  those  days  the  universities  contained 
many  boys  under  fourteen.  The  uni¬ 
versity  in  1358  (?)  decreed  that  no  one 


262 


FITZRALPH  AND  THE  FRIARS. 


Book  VIII. 


the  mendicants  raised  up  determined  enemies,  of  whom 
the  most  noted  was  Richard  Fitzralph,  an  eminent  teacher 
of  Oxford,  and  afterwards  archbishop  of  Armagh.  Fitz¬ 
ralph  inveighed  against  the  prominent  faults  of  the  friars 
— their  pride,  their  greed,  their  notorious  disregard  of 
their  rules,  their  usurpations  on  the  parochial  clergy.  He 
tells  them  that  all  the  privileges  which  they  laboured  to 
acquire  for  themselves  were  such  as  were  attended  with 
temporal  gain  ;  that  they  showed,  no  eagerness  for  those 
unpaid  duties  in  which  they  might  have  usefully  assisted.11 
Fitzralph  carried  his  complaints  against  the  mendicants 
to  Avignon  ;  but  he  was  strongly  opposed  by  the  interest 
^  which  their  money  acquired  for  them  in  the 

D  papal  court,  where  the  funds  supplied  by  the 
English  clergy  for  the  support  of  his  cause  were  soon 
exhausted ;  and  while  the  question  was  yet  undecided, x 
he  died  there  in  1361.? 

In  many  respects,  therefore,  the  practical  grievances  of 
the  Roman  system  had  provoked  the  angry  discontent  of 
the  English  people ;  and  by  this  feeling  the  minds  of  many 


should  be  admitted  to  the  orders  under 
the  age  of  eighteen  ;  and  against  this 
the  Franciscans  appealed  to  the  pope. 
Munimenta  Oxon.  i.  204  (Chron.  and 
Mem.),  cf.  207  ;  Lewis,  Life  of  Wyclif, 
4  ;  Milm.  v.  489. 

u  In  Goldast.  ii.  1400,  or  Brown’s 
Fascic.  ii.  466,  seqq.  Cf.  D’Argentre, 
i.  378  ;  Rayn.  1356.  6-7.  He  says  that 
the  friars  bought  up  all  the  useful  books, 
and  shut  them  up  unprofitably  in  their 
libraries  (1399).  A  Franciscan  named 
Roger  Chonoe  [Conway]  wrote  in  an¬ 
swer  (lb.  1410,  seqq.),  and  Fitzralph 
rejoined.  See  Collier,  iii.  117  ;  Lewis,  5. 

x  Innocent  VI.  ordered  that,  while 
the  case  was  pending,  the  mendicants 
should  not  be  hindered  in  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  sacraments,  preaching, 
etc.  Wadd.  1357.  7. 

y  W.  Nang.  cont.  117 ;  Wadd.  1357. 

4  ;  Baluz.  i.  337,  950;  Knyghton,  26x5, 


2625  ;  Pauli,  iv.  483.  Fitzralph’s  “pro- 
positio  ”  before  the  pope  and  cardinals 
is  in  Goldast,  ii.  1392.  In  the  ‘Gesta 
Abbatum  ’  it  is  said  that  the  abbot  of 
St.  Albans  contributed  largely  to  help 
him  in  the  expenses  of  his  suit.  (ii.  405.) 
The  bishops  also  assisted.  (Wyclif, 
Trialog.  iv.  36,  p.  375.)  Fitzralph  was 
near  being  canonized,  as  he  was  be¬ 
lieved  to  have  done  miracles  after  death. 
Chron.  S.  Alb.  ed.  Thompson  (Chron. 
and  Mem.),  48;  Rayn.  1358.  6.  Yet 
some  have  spoken  of  him  as  a  heretic, 
and  Wadding  defends  him,  because  he 
committed  his  writings  to  the  judgment 
of  the  church,  “et  plus  peccavit  intel- 
lectus  exuberantia  quam  voluntatis  per- 
versitate.”  (1357.  8.)  A  biographer  of 
Innocent  VI.  says  that  at  the  arch¬ 
bishop’s  death,  the  friars  were  inclined 
to  sing  Gaudeamus  rather  than  Re¬ 
quiem.  Baluz.  i.  538 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1324-61, 


WYCLIF. 


263 


had  been  prepared  to  welcome  an  attack  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  church,  as  well  as  on  its  administration.  The 
opposition  to  the  doctrines  of  the  church  of  Rome,  how¬ 
ever  formidable  it  had  been  in  some  instances,  had  never 
yet  been  of  such  a  kind  as  to  be  fitted  for  attracting 
general  sympathy.  Sometimes  it  had  been  carried  on  by 
enthusiasts,  who  were  evidently  weak  or  disordered  in 
judgment;  sometimes  by  men  whose  opinions  were  so 
utterly  remote  from  the  traditional  system,  that  they  could 
have  little  chance  of  acceptance  with  those  who  had  been 
trained  in  it ;  nor  had  any  one  of  the  sects  which  arose 
during  the  middle  ages  been  able  to  gain  a  footing  in 
England.2  A  reformer  of  a  new  and  more  dangerous 
kind  was  now  to  arise — a  man  who,  before  appearing  in 
that  character,  had  gained  a  high  reputation  in  literature 
and  philosophy ;  one  who  was  fitted  either  to  address  him¬ 
self  to  the  learned,  or  to  adapt  his  teaching,  in  language 
and  in  style  of  argument,  to  the  understanding  of  the 
common  people ;  a  reformer  whose  opinions  were  not, 
indeed,  free  from  extravagances,  but  yet  were  professedly 
grounded  on  Scripture,  and  appealed  from  the  prevailing 
corruptions  to  the  standard  of  an  older  time. 

The  earlier  part  of  John  Wyclif’s  life  is  involved  in 
much  obscurity ;  and  such  discoveries  as  have  lately 
been  made  respecting  it  have  resulted  rather  in  disencum¬ 
bering  the  story  of  errors  which  had  long  prevailed  than 
in  the  establishment  of  any  new  truths.9.  His  birthplace 
was  probably  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Rich¬ 
mond,  in  Yorkshire  :b  the  year  usually  given  for  his  birth, 
1324,  is  perhaps  somewhat  later  than  the  true  date.0  He 

*  See  Lechler,  i.  214-15.  (‘John  W.,  a  monograph,’  Lond.  1853, 

*  Andrew  of  Ratisbon,  about  1430,  p.  5)  does  not  seem  to  rest  on  any  strong 

was  told  that  he  was  the  son  of  a  Jew  ground.  See,  however,  Lechler,  i.  263. 
by  a  widow  who  had  come  in  poverty  c  Shirley,  Pref.  to  ‘Fasciculi  Ziza- 
from  France  !  Pez,  IV.  iii.  620.  niorum/  10-12  (Chron.  and  Mem.), 

b  Dr.  R.  Vaughan’s  positive  belief  of  — the  first  publication  of  one  whose 

his  having  been  born  at  Wycliffe  early  death  must  be  deeply  lamented. 


264 


WYCLIF. 


Book  VIII. 


studied  in  the  university  of  Oxford ;  but  the  statements 
that  he  was  educated  at  Queen’s  college, d  and  that  he 
took  a  prominent  share  in  Fitzralph’s  controversy  with 
the  mendicants,  are  not  warranted  by  any  sufficient  evi¬ 
dence.®  The  first  certain  notice  of  him  belongs  to  the 
year  1361,  when  he  appears  as  master  or  warden  of  Balliol 
college  ;  and  this  preferment  he  exchanged  in  the  same 
year  for  the  parish  of  Fillingham,  near  Lincoln, f  to  which 
he  was  presented  by  his  college.  It  would  seem,  however, 
that  with  the  bishop’s  permission  he  continued  to  reside 
for  the  most  part  at  Oxford.8  The  statements  which 
were  long  received  as  to  the  offices  and  benefices  held 
by  Wyclif  are  very  perplexing,  especially  as  they  seem  to 
show  a  glaring  contradiction  between  his  own  practice 
and  the  opinions  which  he  professed  as  to  the  possessions 
of  the  clergy.  But  it  now  appears  that  the  reformer  has 
been  confounded  with  another  person  of  the  same  name, 
or  one  nearly  resembling  it, — and  that  to  this  other  John 
Wyclif  or  Whytecliff  are  perhaps  to  be  referred  the  fellow¬ 
ship  of  Merton  college,  the  living  of  Mayfield,  and  the 
mastership  of  Canterbury  Hall — to  the  loss  of  which  last 
preferment,  by  a  papal  sentence  in  1370,  Wyclif’s  entrance 
on  the  career  of  a  reformer  has  often  been  ascribed  by  his 
enemies.11  By  others  among  those  who  have  wished  to 


not  only  by  those  who  had  the  privilege 
of  his  friendship,  but  by  all  who  can 
appreciate  the  rare  combination  of 
powers  and  acquirements  which  fitted 
him  to  advance  the  study  of  ecclesias¬ 
tical  history.  [I  have  cited  Dr.  Shir¬ 
ley’s  introduction  under  his  name, 
substituting  Arabic  for  Roman  figures.] 
d  Vaughan,  26.  The  Wyclif  who 
appears  as  occasionally  resident  in 
Queen’s  College,  from  1360  to  1380,  was 
probably  the  reformer  ;  but  there  is  no 
proof  of  his  having  been  a  member  of 
that  college  in  early  life.  (Shirley,  13.) 
Lechler  supposes  that  he  was  a  scholar 
of  Balliol,  and  that,  having  left  it  on 


taking  the  degree  of  M.  A.  for  a  fellow¬ 
ship  of  Merton,  he  was  afterwards  re¬ 
called  to  become  head.  i.  289-91. 
e  Shirley,  13-14.  r  lb.  14-15. 

£  Lechler,  i.  292,  316. 
h  E.g.,  Lingard,  iii.  267-8.  This 
motive  is  mentioned  by  a  contemporary, 
Wodeford,  in  a  work  of  which  only  ex¬ 
tracts  have  been  printed  (see  Lechler, 
i.  299).  Against  him,  see  Shirley,  15, 
517,  523;  but  the  same  story  is  told  in  a 
St.  Alban’s  chronicle  (see  below,  p.  270). 
The  distinction  between  the  two  Wy- 
clifs  was  first  proposed  by  Mr.  Court- 
hope,  of  the  College  of  Arms,  in  the 
*  Gentleman’s  Magazine’  for  1844  In 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1324-70, 


WYCLIF. 


265 


charge  him  with  interested  motives,  it  has  been  supposed 
that  his  zeal  was  awakened  by  disappointment  as  to  a 
bishoprick  in  the  year  1364;*  but  his  earliest  appearance 
as  a  reformer  has  been  more  truly  referred  to  the  time 
when  he  became  a  doctor  in  divinity,  and  in  right  of  this 
degree  began  to  read  lectures  in  the  university.k  He  was 
already  eminent  as  a  philosophical  and  scientific  teacher,1 
and,  having  adopted  the  theory  of  Realism  (which  had 
for  a  time  been  discountenanced  by  the  authority  of 
Ockham  and  other  popular  masters),  he  had  produced 
a  treatise  “  On  the  Reality  of  Universals,”  which  was 
regarded  as  marking  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  opinion.111 
If  a  book  entitled  “The  Last  Age  of  the  Church”11  were 
really  Wyclifs,  it  would  prove  that  he  was  at  one  time 
affected  by  the  ideas  of  abbot  Joachim  and  the  fraticelli. 
But  it  seems  to  be  certain  that  this  was  never  the  case;  and 
the  tract  in  question  is  clearly  the  work  of  a  Franciscan.0 

In  1 366  Urban  V.  demanded  from  England  thirty- 
three  years’  arrears  of  the  tribute  which  king  John  had 
bound  himself  to  pay  to  the  Roman  see.  At  a  former 
time,  John  XXII.  had  obtained  from  Edward  II.  a 
similar  payment  of  arrears  as  a  condition  of  his  favour 


support  of  this  view,  see  Shirley’s 
Preface,  and  p.  313.  See  also  the  last 
edition  of  Fox’s  Acts  and  Monuments, 
by  the  Rev.  J.  Pratt,  Appendix,  iii. 
812.  Mr.  Pratt  inclines  to  think  that 
the  reformer  was  the  same  with  the 
warden  of  Canterbury  Hall,  and  Dr. 
Vaughan  is  confident  on  the  subject. 
(548.)  Prof.  Lechler  also  argues  to  the 
same  effect,  and  produces  a  passage 
from  Wyclifs  tract,  ‘De  Ecclesia,’ 
which  refers  to  the  affair  (i.  294-312  ; 
ii.  574).  Cf.  the  Preface  to  the  Wyclifite 
version  of.the  Bible,  p.  vii.  (Oxf.  1850). 
In  his  earlier  book  (‘The  Life  and 
Opinions  of  J.  Wycliffe,’  Lond.  1828), 
Dr.  Vaughan  gives  documents  as  to 
Canterbury  Hall.  Append,  to  vol.  i. 

*  See  Shirley,  17,  .524  ;  Monum. 


Cone.  Basil,  i.  317. 

k  Lewis  places  the  D.D.  degree  in 
1372  (p.  18).  Dr.  Shirley  thinks  that  it 
must  have  been  about  1363,  and  that 
the  preface  to  the  treatise  ‘  De  Dominio 
Divino,’  about  1366,  marks  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  Wyclifs  movement  (xvi.  39, 
41).  Prof.  Lechler  places  the  degree 
in  1366.  i.  312-15. 

1  “In  philosophia  nulli  reputabatur 
secundus,  in  scholasticis  disciplinis  in~ 
comparabilis.”  Knyghton,  in  Twysd. 
2644. 

m  See  Neand.  ix.  194  ;  Milm.  v.  487. 

n  Published  at  Dublin,  1840,  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Todd. 

0  Shirley,  13-14  ;  Lechler,  i.  228-9  > 
ii-  447'53-  See  Vaughan,  43-9. 


266 


WILLIAM  OF  WYKEHAM. 


Book  VIII. 


in  the  conflict  with  Robert  Bruce  ;p  and  throughout  the 
earlier  years  of  Edward  Illds  reign  the  money  had  been 
regularly  paid.q  But  during  the  costly  war  with  France 
it  had  again  fallen  into  neglect;  and  when  in  1357  a 
claim  was  made  by  Innocent  VI.,  the  king  answered 
by  declaring  himself  resolved  to  hold  his  kingdom  in 
freedom  and  independence.r  On  the  renewal  of  the 
claim  nine  years  later,  the  parliament,  headed  by  the 
bishops  (who  gave  their  opinion  before  the  lay  peers), 
resolved  that  king  John  had  had  no  right  to  bind  his 
people  or  future  generations  to  such  subjection.8  Wyclif, 
who  was  already  one  of  the  king’s  chaplains,1  appears  to 
have  been  consulted  by  the  government  on  this  question; 
and  in  answer  to  a  challenge  by  a  doctor  who  belonged 
to  some  monastic  order,  he  defended  in  a  determination 
at  Oxford  the  course  which  had  been  taken  in  answer  to 
the  Roman  claim. u 

The  employment  of  ecclesiastics  in  secular  offices  was 
denounced  by  Wyclif  as  an  abuse ;  and  of  this  system 
the  most  conspicuous  representative  was  William  of 
Wykeham,  bishop  of  Winchester,  a  man  whose  dignities 
had  been  won  by  his  own  talents,  and  whose  name  is 
honourably  preserved  to  this  day  by  the  great  foundations 
on  which  his  wealth  was  munificently  spent.  Against 
him,  therefore,  the  efforts  of  a  party  in  the  state  were 
chiefly  directed.  While  Edward  III.,  towards  the  close 


p  Theiner,  193-4  ;  Milm.  v.  481. 

1  There  are  receipts  for  1330-1-3  in 
Rymer,  ii.  789,  864,  and  Theiner,  250, 
259- 

r  Knyghton,  2617.  See  Hook,  iv. 
192. 

s  Lewis,  Life  of  WyclifF,  7  ;  Lin- 
gard,  iii.  253. 

1  “  Cum  sim  peculiaris  regis  cleri- 
cus.”  Wicl.  in  Lewis,  363. 

u  ‘  Determinatio  de  Dominio,’  in 
Lewis,  363,  seqq.  (In  this  he  asserts 


the  independence  of  the  kingdom  of 
England,  and  denies  the  immunity  of 
the  clergy,  as  being  contrary  to  Eng¬ 
lish  law.  He  maintains  that  property 
given  to  the  clergy  may  rightfully  be 
taken  away  ;  and  he  gives  what  has 
been  described  as  the  first  report  of  a 
parliamentary  debate— the  opinions  of 
seven  lords  on  the  question.)  See 
Lewis,  18  ;  Pauli,  iv.  484  ;  Shirley, 
Pref.  14;  Vaughan,  105-15;  Lechler, 
i-  *33- 


Chap.  VI.  a. d.  1366-75.  WYCLIF  AT  BRUGES.  267 

of  his  long  and  glorious  reign,  had  fallen  under  the 
domination  of  a  worthless  woman,  and  his  son  Edward, 
the  favourite  hero  of  the  nation,  was  sinking  under  long 
disease,  the  king’s  next  surviving  son,  John  of  Gaunt, 
duke  of  Lancaster,  headed  the  party  of  the  old  feudal 
aristocracy.  Lancaster  was  a  man  of  corrupt  life,  of 
selfish  ambition,  closely  allied  with  Wyclifs  enemies,  the 
mendicant  friars,  and  bent  on  humiliating  the  clergy, 
whereas  Wyclifs  object  was  to  purify  them.  Yet  the 
two  co-operated  towards  what  was  nominally  a  common 
object,  and,  with  the  aid  of  the  commons,  Wykeham  was 
in  1371  driven  from  office  and  impeached,  while  other 
ecclesiastics  were  also  deprived  of  their  secular  employ¬ 
ments,  and  the  bishop  was  not  summoned  to  the  next 
parliament.* 

In  July  1374  Wyclif  was  sent  to  Bruges,  with  the 
bishop  of  Bangor  and  others,  for  the  purpose  of  conferring 
with  some  envoys  of  the  Roman  court  on  certain  points 
as  to  the  relations  of  the  English  church  and  the  papacy, 
while  the  duke  of  Lancaster  and  other  representatives  of 
England  were  engaged  in  political  negotiations  at  the  same 
place  with  French  princes,  bishops,  and  nobles,  and  with 
prelates  appointed  by  the  pope  to  mediate  between  the 
two  nations/  The  English  commissioners  complained 
of  the  levying  of  exactions  unparalleled  in  any  other 
country,  of  the  reservations  of  benefices,  and  of  the  pope’s 
interference  with  the  election  of  bishops ;  while  on  the 
other  side  it  was  urged  that  papal  bulls  were  not  received 
in  England  as  in  other  kingdoms,  and  that  the  represen¬ 
tatives  of  the  pope  were  not  freely  admitted. 

After  much  discussion,  a  compromise  was 
agreed  on,  of  which  the  chief  articles  were,  that 
the  pope  should  give  up  his  claim  to  reservations,  and  that 


x  Chron.  S.  Alban.  106-7  >  Lowth, 
Life  of  William  of  Wykeham,  c.  iv.; 


Pauli,  iv.  485,  495  ;  Shirley,  26. 
y  Rymer,  iii.  1007  ;  Lechler,  i.  346-8. 


268 


WYCLIF  APPEARS 


Book  VIII. 


the  king  should  no  longer  confer  benefices  by  the  writ  of 
Quare  impedit.  In  this  arrangement  the  statute  of  pro¬ 
visors  was  over-ridden  by  the  royal  prerogative.  Nothing 
was,  however,  concluded  as  to  the  important  subject  of 
elections ;  and  in  the  following  year  we  already  find  a 
renewal  of  the  complaints  as  to  the  encroachments  of  the 
Roman  court  in  the  matter  of  reservations.2  The  “  good 
parliament,”  as  it  was  called,  of  that  year,  while  it  took 
up  the  cause  of  William  of  Wykeham  and  his  fellows, 
and  procured  their  restoration  to  the  royal  council, a 
showed  itself  resolutely  hostile  to  the  corruptions  of  the 
Roman  administration.  It  was  said  that  the  money  drawn 
by  the  pope  from  England  was  five  times  as  much  as  the 
taxes  paid  to  the  crown  ;  and  a  formidable  list  of  English 
preferments  held  by  cardinals  and  other  members  of  the 
papal  court  was  exhibited.  Such  representations  were 
frequent ;  the  statute  of  provisors  was  twice  re-enacted, 
and  each  time  with  increased  severity;15  but  the  popes 
continued  to  violate  these  statutes,  and  to  carry  on  the 
usurpations  by  which  the  mind  of  the  English  nation  had 
been  so  long  provoked.0 

In  the  end  of  the  year  1375  AVyclif  was  presented  by 
the  crown,  in  right  of  a  patron  who  was  under  age,  to  the 
rectory  of  Lutterworth  in  Leicestershire  d — a  parish  which 
was  his  home  throughout  the  remainder  of  his  life,  though 
his  residence  there  was  varied  by  frequent  visits  to 
Oxford.e  The  experience  which  he  had  gained  at  Bruges 
had  probably  made  him  more  fully  acquainted  than  before 


*  Ryu..  ii».  1038 ;  cf.  1072 ;  Walsingh. 
i.  317  ;  Lewis,  31  ;  Shirley,  23  ;  Milm. 
v.  495  ;  Hoolr,  iv.  252-3.  “  De  elec- 

tionibus  .  .  .  ninil  penitus  erat  tactum, 
et  hoc  ascribitur  aliquibus  qui  sciebant 
se  potius  per  curiam  Romanam,  quam 
per  electiones,  ad  dignitates  episcopales 
quas  ambiunt  promoveri.  ”  (W  alsingh. 
.  c.)  The  treaty  was  concluded  on  the 
st  of  September  1375 ;  and  on  the 


12th  the  chief  member  of  the  commis¬ 
sion  was  translated  by  papal  provision 
to  Hereford.  Shirley,  1.  c. 

a  Rymer,  old  ed.  vii.  163-70;  Chron. 
S.  Alban.  114. 

0  3  Rich.  II.  c.  3  ;  7  Rich.  II.  c.  12. 

c  Lewis.  31 ;  Vaughan,  173-7;  Milm 
v.  495-7* 

“  Lewis,  40  ;  Vaughan,  18a. 

*  Shirley,  37-8. 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1375-7.  AS  A  REFORMER. 


269 


with  the  faults  of  the  Roman  system.  He  had  satisfied 
himself  that  the  pretensions  of  the  papacy  had  no  sufficient 
foundation ;  and  this  conviction  he  published  indefatigably, 
ill  learned  lectures  and  disputations,  in  sermons,  and  in 
tracts  which  for  the  first  time  set  before  the  humbler 
and  less  educated  classes,  in  strong  and  clear  English 
prose,  the  results  of  inquiry  and  thought  in  opposition  to 
the  existing  state  of  the  church.1  He  denounced  the 
pope  as  “  anti-Christ,  the  proud  worldly  priest  of  Rome, 
and  the  most  cursed  of  clippers  and  purse-carvers.”  s 
He  inveighed  against  the  pride,  the  pomp,  the  luxury  of 
prelates,  against  their  enmity  to  the  power  of  sovereigns, 
against  the  claims  of  the  clergy  to  immunity  from  secular 
jurisdiction,  their  ignorance,  their  neglect  of  preaching, 
the  abuse  of  the  privilege  of  sanctuary  to  shelter  notorious 
criminals.11  He  held  the  temporal  lords  were  entitled  to 
resume  such  endowments  of  the  church  as  were  abused ; 
and  that  it  was  for  the  temporal  lords  to  judge  of  the  abuse 
as  well  as  to  execute  the  sentence,  and  probably  also  to 
benefit  by  the  forfeiture.1 

It  was  natural  that  such  opinions  should  give  great 
offence  to  those  who  were  attacked,  especially  as  the 
political  connexion  of  Wyclif  with  the  duke  of  Lancaster 
invested  them  with  a  more  alarming  character^  Wyclif 
was  summoned  to  appear  before  the  primate  and  the 
bishop  of  London  in  St.  Paul’s  church  on  the  23rd  of 
February  1377  ;  and  the  character  of  the  prosecution  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that,  although  errors  of  doctrine  had 
already  been  laid  to  his  charge,  those  which  were  now 


f  Neand.  ix.  51 1 ;  Milm.  v.  5x7.  On 
the  differences  between  his  Latin  and 
his  English  writings,  see  Shirley’s 
Catalogue,  viii.  (Oxf.  1865). 

s  Lewis,  31.  Planck  translates 
“  clippers”  by  Schaafscheerer  ! 
h  lb.  35-8. 

1  Works,  iii.  216,  233,  seqq.,  360; 


Walsingh.  i.  324.  A  friar  had  been 
made  to  recant  at  Oxford  in  1358  for 
having  taught  that  the  king  might  with¬ 
out  wrong  take  away  the  possessions  of 
clergymen  living  “male  et  inordinate.” 
Munim.  Oxon.  (Chron.  and  Mem.) 
i.  209. 

k  Shirley,  26-7 


270  WYCLIF  AT  ST.  PAUL’S.  Book  VIII. 

brought  forward  related  entirely  to  political  and  social 
questions.1  The  reformer  had  with  him  two  powerful 
supporters,  the  duke  of  Lancaster  and  Lord  Percy,  earl 
marshal,”1  and  the  scene  was  one  of  great  violence.  In¬ 
stead  of  the  proposed  inquiry,  there  was  an  exchange  of 
reproachful  words  between  Wyclif  s  friends  and  the  bishop 
of  London — William  Courtenay,  a  son  of  the  earl  of 
Devon — while  Wyclif  himself  appears  to  have  been  silent 
throughout,  as  if  ashamed  of  the  unruly  conduct  of  his 
protectors.  Lancaster  threatened  to  bring  down  the 
pride  not  only  of  Courtenay,  but  of  all  the  prelacy  of 
England  :  he  charged  him  with  relying  on  the  power  of 
his  family,  but  told  him  that,  instead  of  being  able  to  help 
him,  they  would  “  have  enough  to  do  to  defend  them¬ 
selves”;  and  when  the  bishop  replied  with  dignity  that  he 
trusted  not  in  his  kinsfolk,  nor  in  any  man  else,  but  in 
God  alone,  the  duke,  unable  to  find  an  answer,  declared 
that  he  would  rather  drag  him  out  of  the  church  by  the 
hair  than  endure  this  at  his  hand.”  The  Londoners  who 
were  present,  furious  at  this  insult  to  their  bishop  and  to 
the  privileges  of  their  city,  broke  out  into  tumult,  and  it 
was  with  difficulty  that  Wyclif  and  his  friends  escaped. 
It  happened  that  on  the  same  day  a  proposal  was  made 
in  parliament  to  transfer  the  government  of  the  city  from 
the  lord  mayor  to  a  commission  of  which  Percy  was  to 
be  the  head,  and  the  report  of  this  increased  the  exaspe¬ 
ration  of  the  mob,  who  next  day  attacked  and  plundered 
Lancaster’s  palace  of  the  Savoy,  barbarously  murdered  an 
ecclesiastic  who  was  mistaken  for  the  earl  marshal,  and 
might  have  committed  further  outrages  but  for  the  inter- 

1  Shirley,  27.  lished  for  the  first  time  in  1874  (pp.  118, 

m  Percy  was  in  the  same  year  created  seqq.,  ed.  E.  M.  Thompson,  in  Chron. 

earl  of  Northumberland.  Nicolas,  His-  and  Mem.).  An  English  version  of  part 
tor.  Peerage,  510.  of  this  had  been  edited  in  vol.  xxii.  of 

n  The  description  of  this  scene  was  the  ‘  Archseologia,’  by  the  late  Mr. 
taken  by  Fox  (ii.  801-2)  from  a  St.  Amyot.  Cf.  Walsingh.  i.  325  ;  Fuller, 
Alban’s  chronicle,  which  has  been  pub-  ii.  340  ;  Hook,  iv.  332. 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1377.  THE  POPE  AGAINST  WYCLIF.  27 1 

position  of  the  bishop  of  London,  who  ha*tened  to  the 
scene  of  the  tumult  and  succeeded  in  appeasing  it.0 

Before  the  meeting  at  St.  Paul’s,  nineteen  articles  of 
accusation  against  Wyclif  had  been  submitted  to  Gregory 
XI. ,p  and  in  the  end  of  May  1377  the  pope  addressed 
bulls  to  the  king,  to  the  archbishop  of  Can¬ 
terbury  and  the  bishop  of  London,  and  to  3°‘ 
the  university  of  Oxford,  reproving  the  ecclesiastical  and 
academical  authorities  for  their  supineness,  and  requiring 
an  investigation  of  the  case.  Wyclif  was  said  to  have 
revived  the  errors  of  Marsilius  and  of  John  of  Jandun — 
to  have  maintained  doctrines  subversive  of  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  government — to  have  denied  the  force  of  papal 
commands  and  the  power  of  the  keys — to  have  asserted 
that  excommunication  is  a  nullity,  unless  a  man  be  ex¬ 
communicated  by  himself — that  the  endowments  of  the 
church  may  be  taken  away  if  abused,  and  that  the 
clergy,  including  even  the  pope  himself,  may  be  accused 
and  corrected  by  the  laity.  In  the  letter  addressed  to 
Oxford  it  was  ordered  that  such  teaching  should  be  sup¬ 
pressed  in  the  university,  and  that  the  chancellor  should 
arrest  Wyclif  and  bring  him  before  the  primate  and  the 
bishop  of  London. ^  But  before  these  documents  could 
reach  England  an  important  change  took 
place  through  the  death  of  Edward  III.,  who  ^une  21‘ 
was  succeeded  by  his  grandson  Richard,  then  only 
eleven  years  old. 

The  university  authorities  of  Oxford,  jealous  of  its  in¬ 
dependence,  showed  no  eagerness  to  carry  out  the  papal 
commands ;  but  the  archbishop  and  the  bishop  of 
London  required  the  chancellor  to  present  Wyclif  before 
them  for  trial/  In  the  meantime  a  new  parliament 

0  Walsingh  325  ;  Chron.  S.  Alb.  q  Walsingh.  i.  346,  seqq.  ;  Fascic. 
120-6;  Pauli,  iv.  498.  Zizan.  242-4;  Shirley,  Pref.  30;  Hook, 

P  They  are  in  Walsingh.  i.  353-5  ;  iv.  271-3  Lechler,  i.  378. 

Lewis,  42.  r  Walsingh.  i.  345,  356  (who  blames 


Book  VIII. 


272  WYCLIF  AT  LAMBETH. 


made  strong  representations  against  the  encroachments 

_  ,  of  the  papacy,  and  consulted  certain  autho- 

October.  .  .  \  .  ,  ,  .  ,  . 

nties  on  the  question  whether  the  king  were 

not  entitled  to  prevent  the  exportation  of  treasure  from 
the  realm,  although  the  pope  might  have  required  it  to 
be  sent  to  him.  To  this  Wyclif,  always  a  partisan  of  the 
crown  as  against  the  claims  of  the  papacy,  answered  that 
for  the  defence  of  the  country  such  a  seizure  would  be 
warranted  by  the  law  of  Christ,  even  although  the  pope’s 
requisition  should  be  made  on  the  ground  of  the  obe¬ 
dience  due  to  him,  and  should  be  enforced  by  the  penalty 
of  his  censures.8 

By  the  death  of  Edward  the  duke  of  Lancaster’s  in¬ 
fluence  was  lessened,  and  the  clergy  felt  themselves 
stronger  than  before.  In  December  Wyclif  was  cited  to 
appear  again  at  St.  Paul’s  within  thirty  days ;  but  the 
place  of  hearing  was  changed  to  the  archbishop’s  chapel 
at  Lambeth,  where,  early  in  the  following  year, 4  Wyclif 
was  required  to  answer  to  the  nineteen  articles  charged 
against  him.  But  immediately  after  the  proceedings 
had  been  opened,  a  message  was  received  from  the 
young  king’s  mother,  desiring  that  the  bishops  would 
carry  the  inquiry  no  further ;  and  while  the  latter  were 
deliberating  whether  this  order  should  be  obeyed,  a  mob 
of  Londoners,  now  favourable  to  Wyclif,  as  from  special 
circumstances  they  had  lately  been  opposed  to  him, 
broke  into  the  chapel  and  compelled  them  to  withdraw.11 

Wyclif  had  already  replied  to  the  charges  against  himx 


the  prelates  for  their  slowness  and 
timidity) ;  Shirley,  30. 

8  Fascic.  Zizan.  258  ;  Vaughan,  196  ; 
Pauli,  iv.  512. 

1  The  precise  date  is  uncertain.  See 
Lechler,  i.  386. 

u  Walsingh.  i.  356. 

*  “Partly  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  articles  come  to  us  from  the 
hand  of  Wickliffe’s  adversaries  ;  but 


much  more,  that  we  have  them  in  their 
naked  and  abstract  form,  without  the 
limitations  and  explanations  which  con¬ 
clusions  so  concisely  expressed  plainly 
demand,  and  through  aid  of  which  we 
have  evidence  enough  to  show  that 
Wickliffe  himself  maintained  and  vindi¬ 
cated  them.”  Wordsworth,  Eccl.  Biog. 
i.  203 — who  goes  on  to  comment  on  the 
propositions  exhibited  at  Lambeth. 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1378. 


HIS  THREE  TRACTS. 


/  J 


in  three  tracts,  of  which  one  would  seem  to  have  been 
intended  for  the  clergy  and  for  academic  readers,  while 
another  was  laid  before  parliament,  and  the  third  is 
a  vehement  attack  on  some  opponent,  whom  he  styles 
a  “medley  divine.” y  The  obscurity  and  over-subtlety 
which  have  been  imputed  to  these  papers  arise  in  part 
from  the  scholastic  method  of  argument.2  Wyclif  en¬ 
deavours  to  explain  and  to  justify,  on  grounds  of  scripture 
and  of  canon-law,  such  of  the  questioned  opinions  as 
he  admits  to  be  really  held  by  him,  and  to  obviate  the 
misconceptions  which  his  language  might  be  too  likely  to 
produce.  He  speaks  of  himself  as  a  sincere  son  of  the 
church,  and  as  willing  to  retract  wherever  he  can  be 
convinced  that  he  is  wrong  a — a  profession  which,  as  it  is 
often  repeated  by  other  reformers  of  the  period,  may  be 
presumed  to  have  been  in  their  minds  something  more 
than  a  nugatory  truism.  Wyclif  was  not  further  cen¬ 
sured  at  this  time  than  by  being  warned  to  avoid  the 
danger  of  misleading  the  ignorant ; b  and  he  thought  him¬ 
self  at  liberty  to  put  forth  ten  new  propositions,  which 
were  chiefly  directed  against  the  interference  of  spiritual 
persons  with  secular  power  and  possessions.0 

The  death  of  Gregory  XI.  put  an  end  to  March  27, 
the  commission  under  which  the  late  pro-  I37^- 
ceedings  had  taken  place  ;  but  the  great  schism  which 


y  “  Mixtim  Theologus  ”  (by  which 
name  he  seems  to  mean  one  who  mixed 
human  traditions  with  the  authority  of 
Scripture — the  divine  who  professes  to 
look  to  Scripture  only  being  “purus 
Theologus.”  Lechler,  i.  477.)  See 
for  these  tracts,  Fascic.  Zizan.  245, 
481  ;  W^Jsingh.  i.  357.  The  order  and 
the  dates  are  matters  of  dispute  ;  and 
there  are  also  questions  as  to  the  kind 
of  readers  for  whom  the  tracts  were 
severally  meant.  Dr.  Shirley  places 
the  first  two  in  October,  and  the  third 
between  the  date  of  these  and  that  of 


the  archbishop’s  letter  to  the  chancellor 
of  Oxford  (31-2).  Dr.  Lingard  had 
argued  that  the  answer  to  the  “medley 
(iii.  302-3)  ;  against  him,  see  Vaughan, 
divine  ”  was  before  the  Lambeth  trial 
222 ;  Pauli,  iv.  514 ;  Pratt,  n.  on  Fox, 
iii.  798. 

2  Pauli,  v.  514.  Walsingham  blames 
Wyclif  for  first  putting  things  “nude 
et  aperte,”  and  afterwards  explaining 
them  away.  i.  363. 
a  lb.  357. 
b  lb.  363. 

•  lb. 


VOL.  VII. 


l8 


274 


WYCLIF  AGAINST  THE  FRIARS. 


Book  VIII. 


followed,  while  it  was  favourable  to  Wyclif  by  supplying 
him  with  fresh  arguments  against  the  papacy,  and  by 
weakening  the  power  of  the  clergy  everywhere,  yet  told 
against  him  by  removing  so  much  of  the  cause  for  the 
anti-papal  feeling  of  the  English  as  had  arisen  from  the 
connexion  of  the  late  popes  with  France  ;  for  England, 
as  we  have  seen,  acknowledged  the  Roman  line  of  popes, 
and  disowned  that  of  Avignon. d  Wyclif  himself  had 
at  first  hailed  the  election  of  Urban  VI.  as  a  reforming 
pope;  but  he  found  his  hopes  disappointed,  and,  after 
some  observation  of  the  schism,  he  declared  that  the 
church  would  be  in  a  better  condition  if  both  the  rival 
popes  were  removed  or  deposed,  forasmuch  as  their 
lives  appeared  to  show  that  they  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  church  of  God.e 

In  his  preaching  at  Oxford  and  elsewhere,  Wyclif 
vehemently  attacked  the  mendicant  orders,  which  he 
declared  to  be  the  great  evil  of  Christendom.  He 
charged  them  with  fifty  errors  of  doctrine  and  practice. 
He  denounced  them  for  intercepting  the  alms  which 
ought  to  belong  to  the  poor;  for  their  unscrupulous 
system  of  proselytizing;  for  their  invasion  of  parochial 
rights;  their  habit  of  deluding  the  common  people  by 
fables  and  legends ;  their  hypocritical  pretensions  to 
sanctity;  their  flattery  of  the  great  and  wealthy,  whom 
it  would  rather  have  been  their  duty  to  reprove  for  their 
sins  ;  their  grasping  at  money  by  all  sorts  of  means ;  the 
needless  splendour  of  their  buildings,  whereas  parish- 
churches  were  left  to  neglect  and  decay.1 

That  these  complaints  were  well  grounded  there  can 
be  no  doubt;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  faults 


d  Shirley,  41. 
e  Lechler,  i.  579-81,  646-9. 
f  Sermons,  passim ;  ‘  Two  Short 
Treatises  against  the  Begging  Friars,’ 
ed.  James,  Oxf.  1608 ;  Lewis.  20-7. 


There  is  a  vehement  tract  against  the 
friars  (Works,  ed.  Arnold,  iii.  366), 
which  the  editor  refers  to  the  latter 
half  of  1384,  but  supposes  to  be  pro¬ 
bably  not  Wyclifs  own. 


Chap.  VI. 


275 


HIS  “POOR  PRIESTS.” 

which  Wyclif  noted  were  for  the  most  part  deviations 
from  the  intentions  of  those  by  whom  the  orders  had 
been  founded.  Indeed,  Wyclif  himself  had  much  in 
common  with  those  founders.  He  held  that  tithes  and 
other  endowments  were  in  their  nature  eleemosynary ; 
that  the  clergy  ought  to  receive  only  so  much  as  might  be 
necessary  for  their  support  ;s  he  insisted  on  the  idea  of 
apostolic  poverty  which  had  been  advocated  by  Arnold 
of  Brescia  and  by  many  sectaries — not  considering  that 
the  effect  of  reducing  all  clerical  income  to  that  which  is 
merely  necessary  will  not  be  a  removal  of  all  secular 
temptations  to  enter  into  the  ministry  of  the  church,  but 
will  leave  such  temptations  as  can  attract  only  an  inferior 
class  of  men.  In  his  earlier  days  he  had  distinguished 
the  mendicants  favourably  from  the  other  monastic 
orders;  and  it  was  probably  not  until  their  faults  had 
been  brought  home  to  him  by  special  circumstances  that 
he  entered  on  a  declared  opposition  to  them.11  In  order 
to  counteract  the  efforts  of  the  friars  and  to  spread  his 
own  opinions,  he  instituted  a  brotherhood  of  his  own, 
under  the  name  of  “poor  priests,”  who  were  to  go  about 
the  country  barefooted,  roughly  clad  in  russet  frocks,1 
penetrating,  as  the  mendicants  had  done,  to  the  humblest 
classes  of  the  people,  and  giving  such  elementary  re¬ 
ligious  instruction  as  they  could.  These  simple  teachers 
were  employed  under  episcopal  authority  throughout  the 
vast  diocese  of  Lincoln,  and  perhaps  elsewhere ;  but  they 
appear  to  have  been  suppressed  in  a  later  stage  of  Wyclif  s 
career.k  Wyclif  refused  to  admit  the  monastic  preten¬ 
sions  in  favour  of  a  life  of  contemplation  and  prayer ;  he 
regarded  the  idea  of  such  a  life  as  selfish,  and  held  that 

s  Lewis,  120-1,  and  Append,  xix.  ;  bishop  Courtenay  in  May  1382  (Wilk. 
Shirley,  66.  iii.  159).  Dr.  Shirley  places  the  sup- 

*'  See  Lechler,  i.  320,  457,  565,  587-8.  pression  between  the  council  of  London 

1  Ad.  Murimuth,  contin.  222 ;  Wal-  and  the  writing  of  the  ‘  Trialogus/ 

singh.  i.  324.  i.e.  in  1382  or  1383.  (Pref.  40.)  The 

k  They  were  denounced  by  arch-  author  of  a  poem  against  the  Wyclifites 


27 6  WYCLIF’S  TRANSLATION  Look  VIII. 

the  clergy  ought  rather  to  labour  in  preaching,  as  being 
a  work  beneficial  to  others.1 

In  1379  Wyclif,  while  residing  at  Oxford,  had  a 
dangerous  illness,  in  which  it  is  said  that  four  doctors, 
belonging  to  the  mendicant  orders,  visited  him  with  the 
design  of  bringing  him  to  express  contrition  and  to 
retract  his  sayings  against  their  brethren  ;  but  that  he 
astonished  and  scared  them  away  by  declaring,  in  scrip¬ 
tural  phrase,  “  I  shall  not  die,  but  live  and  declare  the 
evil  deeds  of  the  friars  ”  :  and  he  was  able  to  keep  his 
word.111 

He  now  entered  on  a  new  and  important  portion  of  his 
work — the  translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
J  into  the  vernacular  tongue.  In  the  prologue 
to  the  version  by  his  follower  John  Purvey,  the  vene¬ 
rable  examples  of  Bede  and  king  Alfred  are  cited  in 
favour  of  such  translations;11  but  whatever  means  of 
attaining  a  knowledge  of  Scripture  through  their  native 
tongue  may  have  been  open  to  the  English  in  earlier 
ages,0  they  had  for  centuries  been  without  such  aids,  and 
in  the  meantime  the  reading  of  Scripture  had  been  for¬ 
bidden,  as  being  dangerous  to  the  unlearned.  Of  late, 


charges  these  preachers  with  hypocrisy, 
much  as  writers  in  the  opposite  interest 
make  similar  imputations  against  the 
friars,  pardoners,  etc.  E.g.: — 

“  Villarum  in  exitibus, 

Se  nudant  sotilaribus 
Cum  populum  ludificant. 

Nudis  incedunt  pedibus 
Cum  appropinquant  foribus 
Locorum  quibus  praedicant. 

Pcenas  foris  amplificant. 

Intus  tamen  laetificant 
Se  multis  voluptatibus. 

Seipsos  sic  magnificant 
Quod  alios  parvificant, 

Multis  pravis  sermonibus,”  etc. 

— Political  Poems ,  ed.  Wright  (Chron.  and 
Mem.),  1.  233. 

Professor  Lechler  thinks  that  the  “poor 
priests”  were  at  first  men  in  holy  orders, 


trained  under  Wyclif  at  Oxford,  but 
that  afterwards  he  employed  laymen  in 
preaching,  i.  412-13,  4x7. 

1  Vaughan,  383,  from  a  Dublin  MS., 
*  Of  feigned  Contemplative  Life  ’  ; 
Lewis,  38-40. 

m  Bale,  de  Scriptoribus  Britannia;, 
i.  469  (who  says  that  he  found  the  story 
“inquodam  scripto  ”).  See  Fox,  iii. 
20,  and  note. 

n  ‘  Wycliffite  Versions  of  the  Bible,'  i. 
59,  edd.  Forshall  and  Madden,  Oxf. 
1850.  That  this  Prologue  was  written 
by  Purvey,  see  ib.  Pref.  xxv. 

0  See  Ussher,  Hist.  Dogmatica,  in 
his  Works,  ed.  Elrington,  xii.  349. 
Westcott’s  Hist,  of  the  English  Bible, 
7,  8  (Cambr.  1868). 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1379-80.  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


277 


however,  renewed  attempts  had  been  made  to  exhibit 
the  sacred  writings  in  an  English  form.  About  the 
beginning  of  Edward  1 1  I/s  reign,  William  of  Shoreham, 
vicar  of  Chart  Sutton  in  Kent,  rendered  the  Psalter  into 
English  prose ; p  and  he  was  soon  after  followed  by- 
Richard  Rolle,  “  the  hermit  of  Hampole,”  who  not  only 
translated  the  text  of  the  Psalms,  but  added  an  English 
commentary.  But  no  other  book  of  Scripture  appears 
to  have  been  rendered  into  our  language  for  centuries 
before  the  time  when  Wyclif  undertook  a  version  of  the 
whole. q  How  much  of  the  gigantic  labour  was  done  by 
his  own  hands  it  is  impossible  to  determine ; r  but  to  him 
we  must  refer  at  least  the  general  merit  of  the  design 
and  the  superintendence  of  the  entire  work.3 

The  effect  of  thus  bringing  home  the  word  of  God  to 
the  unlearned  people  is  shown  by  the  indignation  of  a 
contemporary  writer,  who  denounces  Wyclif  as  having 
made  the  gospel  “common,  and  more  open  to  laymen 
and  to  women  who  can  read  than  it  is  wont  to  be  to 
clerks  well  learned  and  of  good  understanding ;  so  that 
the  pearl  of  the  gospel  is  scattered  and  is  trodden  under 
foot  of  swine  ” ;  and  he  applies,  as  if  prophetical  of 
Wyclifs  labours,  some  passages  in  which  William  of  St. 
Amour  had  denounced  the  “everlasting  gospel”  of  an 
earlier  party.1  It  is  said  that  the  bishops  attempted  in 


P  Pref.  to  ‘  Wycliffite  Versions,’  4. 

1  It  has  been  supposed  that  John  of 
Trevisa,  a  parish  priest  in  Cornwall, 
independently  of  Wyclif,  and  some¬ 
what  before  him,  translated  the  whole 
Bible  (Wharton,  in  Ussher,  xii.  346)  ; 
but  the  investigations  of  Mr.  Forshall 
and  Sir  F.  Madden  have  shown  that 
this  is  a  mistake.  Pref.  21.  See 
Lechler,  i.  430. 
r  See  the  Preface,  17. 

8  lb.  6.  The  author  of  the  *  Pro¬ 
logue  ’  tells  us  that,  in  his  ignorance  of 
the  original  tongues,  he  endeavoured 


to  obtain  a  correct  text  by  collating 
many  copies,  either  personally  or  by 
means  of  his  assistants  ;  that  he  called 
in  the  aid  of  commentators,  especially 
of  Nicolas  de  Lyra  ;  and  that  his  prin¬ 
ciple  was  “  to  translate  after  the  sen¬ 
tence,  and  not  only  after  the  words.” 
(57.)  This  passage  has  often  been 
quoted  as  from  Wyclif,  but  is  really 
by  Purvey,  and  relates  to  his  some¬ 
what  later  version.  Purvey  recanted 
Wycliffism  in  1400.  Fascic.  Ziz.  400. 

1  Knyghton,  in  Twysd.  2644.  See 
vol.  vi.  p.  433. 


27S 


WYCLIF  ON  THE  DOCTRINE 


Book  VIII. 


1390  to  get  the  version  condemned  by  parliament,  lest 
it  should  become  an  occasion  of  heresies;  but  John  of 
Gaunt  “  with  a  great  oath  ”  declared  that  the  English 
would  not  submit  to  the  degradation  of  being  denied  a 
vernacular  Bible,  while  other  nations  were  allowed  to 
enjoy  it;  and  other  nobies  added  that,  if  there  were 
danger  of  heresy  lrom  having  the  Scriptures  in  English, 
there  had  been  more  heresies  among  the  Latins  than 
among  the  people  of  any  other  language.11  The  attempt 
at  prohibition,  therefore,  failed,  and  the  English  Bible 
spread  far  and  wide,  being  diffused  chiefly  through  the 
exertions  of  the  “  poor  priests,”  whom  Wyclif  employed 
to  publish  his  doctrines  about  the  country,  and  furnished 
with  portions  of  his  translation  as  the  text  which  they 
were  to  expound,  and  the  foundation  on  which  they  were 
to  rest  their  preaching. 

Soon  after  having  engaged  in  the  translation,  Wyclif, 
.  who  had  thus  far  shown  himself  as  a  reformer 

A.  D.  1381.  .  .  _  .  ,  .  .  , 

only  in  matters  relating  to  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  government,  and  as  to  the  powers  of  the  clergy,31  or 
as  a  maintainer  of  philosophical  opinions  which  differed 
from  those  generally  accepted,  went  on  to  assail  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  church  in  the  matter  of  the  eucharist,  by  putting 
forth  certain  propositions,  which  he  offered  to  maintain 
in  public  disputation. y  This,  however,  the  authorities 
of  Oxford  would  not  allow  ;  the  chancellor,  William  Ber- 
thon,  with  some  doctors,  condemned  Wyclifs  opinions,2 
whereupon  he  appealed  to  the  king8 — an  act  which 
naturally  excited  the  anger  of  the  clergy,  as  being  an 
attack  on  the  church’s  right  of  judgment.11  His  old  patron 

u  Wharton,  Auctarium,  ap.  Ussher,  Friars,  p.  34 ;  Walsingh.  i.  450;  Shirley, 

xii.  352.  See  as  to  “  00  great  bishop  42.  On  his  eucharistic  doctrine,  see 

of  Engeland,”  who  was  against  transla-  Lechler,  i.  615,  seqq. 
tion  of  the  Scriptures,  Wycl.  Serm.  i.  *  Fascic.  109-13. 

209.  *  lb.  114. 

x  Fascic.  2  ;  Vaughan,  346.  b  See  Lewis,  Append,  xv.  ;  Fascic. 

•v  Treatises  against  the  Order  of  114. 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1381. 


OF  THE  EUCHARIST. 


279 


the  duke  of  Lancaster,  who  took  no  interest  in  such  ques¬ 
tions,  charged  him  to  refrain  from  teaching  his  doctrine 
as  to  the  eucharist ; c  but  Wyclif,  instead  of  obeying  this 
order,  put  forth  a  “  confession/’  in  which  he  asserted  and 
defended  his  opinion. d  He  maintained  that  the  sacra¬ 
ment  of  the  altar  was  not  a  mere  sign,  but  was  at  once 
figure  and  truth;  that  all  teachers  since  the  year  1,000 
had  erred,  with  the  sole  exception  of  Berengar, — the  devil 
having  been  let  loose,  and  having  had  power  over  the 
“  master  of  the  Sentences  ”  and  others.e  He  distinguished 
various  modes  of  being,  and  said  that  the  body  of  Christ 
was  in  the  consecrated  host  virtually,  spiritually,  and 
sacramentally,  but  that  it  was  not  substantially,  corporally, 
or  dimensionally,  elsewhere  than  in  heaven ;  that,  as  St. 
John  the  Baptist,  on  becoming  the  Elias,  did  not  cease 
to  be  Johnf — as  one  who  is  changed  into  a  pope  still 
remains  the  same  man  as  before  8 — so  it  was  with  the 
bread  and  wine  of  the  sacrament.  And  he  severely 
reprobated  the  holders  of  the  current  doctrine  as  being 
“followers  of  signs  and  worshippers  of  accidents.”11  It 
was,  he  said,  beyond  the  reach  even  of  almighty  power 
to  cause  the  existence  of  accidents  without  any  subject.1 
Thus  an  important  addition  was  made  to  the  subjects  of 
controversy  between  Wyclif  and  the  ruling  party  in  the 
church ;  and  in  order  to  set  forth  his  views  in  a  popular 


c  Fascic.  1 14. 

d  lb.  115  ;  Lewis,  85  ;  Shirley,  43. 

®  Fascic.  1 14 ;  Trialog.  ii.  7,  p.  153  ; 
Wilkins,  iii.  171.  (Apocal.  xx.  3.) 
f  Trialog.  iv.  4,  p.  256 ;  9,  pp.  274-5. 
s  Fascic.  107. 
h  lb.  125. 

1  lb.  106,  115,  132,  and  Pref.  60-2; 
Walsingh.  i.  450 ;  ii.  52  (who  calls 
him  Wikkebeleve) ;  Lewis,  Append, 
xvi.  Knyghton  relates  that  a  knight 
named  Cornelius  Clonne  was  converted 
from  Wyclif ’s  opinions  as  to  the  sacra¬ 
ment  by  seeing  that,  at  the  breaking 


of  the  host  in  the  mass,  the  part  which 
was  to  be  put  into  the  cup  remained 
white,  but  had  the  name  of  J esus  written 
on  it,  “litteris  carneis,  crudis,  et  san- 
guinolentis,”  while  the  other  parts  ap¬ 
peared  as  bleeding  flesh.  His  squire, 
whom  he  called  to  witness  this,  saw 
nothing  extraordinary ;  but  the  miracle 
was  turned  to  account.  (2651.)  Wal- 
singham  has  a  story  of  a  Wiltshire 
knight  who  carried  off  the  consecrated 
host,  and  ate  it  as  common  food,  but 
was  brought  to  a  right  mind  by  the 
bishop  of  Salisbury,  i.  450. 


280 


Look  VIII. 


wat  tyler’s  insurrection. 


form,  be  produced  a  treatise  which  is  known  as  his 
“  Wicket.”  k 

In  the  same  year  took  place  the  rising  of  the  peasantry 
under  Wat  Tyler — a  movement  similar  to  those  which 
somewhat  earlier  had  been  designated  in  France  by 
the  name  of  Jacquerie.1  It  was  the  policy  of  Wyclifs 
enemies  to  connect  him  with  this  insurrection,  by  repre¬ 
senting  it  as  the  effect  of  his  teaching  ;,n  and  one  of  the 
leaders,  a  priest  named  John  Ball,  declared  in  his  con¬ 
fession  that  he  had  been  two  years  a  follower  of  Wyclif, 
whom  he  described  as  the  chief  author  of  the  revolt.11 
But,  in  truth,  this  connexion  was  imaginary.  The  fury 
of  Tyler’s  followers  was  especially  directed,  not  against 
the  clergy  (as  would  have  been  the  case  if  the  impulse  had 
been  derived  from  Wyclif),  but  against  persons  in  secular 
authority  and  administrative  office,  against  lawyers,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  and  men  of  wealth,0  especially  those  who  had 
become  rich  by  commerce.  It  was  not  on  account  of 
his  spiritual  office,  but  as  chancellor  of  the  kingdom,  that 
archbishop  Simon  of  Sudbury  was  beheaded  on  Tower 
Hill.p  Ball,  instead  of  having  learnt  his  principles  from 


k  Printedat  Nuremberg,  1546 ;  edited 
by  the  Rev.  T.  P.  Pantin,  Oxf.  1828, 
and  included  in  the  Religious  Tract 
Society’s  selection  from  Wyclif’s  works. 
For  passages  illustrating  his  eucharistic 
doctrine,  see  Vaughan,  312  ;  also  Lech- 
ler’s  comparison  of  his  various  expres¬ 
sions,  in  Herzog,  xviii.  102. 

1  The  first  outbreak  of  the  Jacquerie 
was  in  1356.  W.  Nang.  cont.  114, 119. 

m  See  Knyghton,  2644  ;  Walsingh. 
ii.  11-12  ;  Latin  poem  against  the  Lol¬ 
lards,  in  Wright,  Polit.  Songs,  i.  235  ; 
Buchon,  n.  on  Froissart,  viii.  69. 

n  Fascic.273;  Lewis,  177-8;  Knygh¬ 
ton  says  that  Ball  was  Wyclif’s  fore¬ 
runner,  preparing  men’s  minds  for  him 
(2644,  2655)  ;  and  in  the  Fascic.  Zizani- 
orum  he  is  styled  the  ‘ *  delectus  sequax  ’’ 
of  Wyclif  (1.  c.).  For  the  causes  of  the 


insurrection,  see  Hallam,  i.  308-9. 

0  See  Fuller,  ed.  Brewer,  ii.  381  ; 
Collier,  iii.  155-6;  Pauli,  ‘Bilder,’ 240-1; 
Bergenroth,  286,  290  ;  Hook,  iv.  289. 
Walsingham  says,  “  Periculosum  erat 
agnosci  pro  clerico,  sed  multo  periculo- 
us  si  ad  latus  alicujus  atramentarium 
inventum  fuisset ;  nam  tales  vix  aut 
nunquam  ah  eorum  manibus  evase- 
runt.”  (ii.  9.) 

J'  Lingard,  iii.  287  ;  Brougham,  Hist, 
of  the  House  of  Lancaster,  16;  Milm. 
v.  507.  Thomas  of  Chartham,  a  monk 
of  Christchurch,  Canterbury,  relates 
that  Sudbury,  while  bishop  of  London, 
in  going  to  Canterbury  at  the  fourth 
jubilee  of  St.  Thomas,  a.d.  1370, 
warned  the  people  whom  he  fell  in  with 
on  the  road  against  trusting  in  the  ple¬ 
nary  indulgence  which  was  expected. 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1381. 


WAT  TYLER’S  INSURRECTION. 


281 


Wyclif,  had,  for  twenty  years  before  this  outbreak,  been 
notorious  as  a  preacher  of  communism  and  revolution  ; 
he  had  been  censured  by  three  successive  primates, q  and 
at  length,  for  his  irregularities,  had  been  committed  to  the 
archbishop’s  prison  at  Maidstone,  from  which  he  was 
released  by  the  rioters.1*  Another  priest,  who,  under  the 
name  of  Jack  Straw,8  was  prominent  as  a  leader,  held 
opinions  akin  to  those  of  the  fraticelli.*  There  were  no 
demonstrations  against  the  popular  superstitions  of  the 
time;  the  insurgents  were  in  alliance  with  Wyclif’s 
enemies,  the  friars,  and  were  furious  against  his 
patron  the  duke  of  Lancaster,  whose  palace  of  the  Savoy 
underwent  a  second  spoliation  and  serious  damage  at 
their  hands. u  In  the  suppression  of  this  rebellion,  a 
conspicuous  part  was  borne  by  Henry  Spenser,  bishop  of 


In  consequence  of  his  speeches,  many 
went  home ;  but  a  knight,  Thomas  of 
Aldoun,  said  to  him,  “  Domine  epis- 
cope,  quod  fecisti  hanc  rem  seditiosam 
ia  populo  contra  S.  Thomam,  sub  peri- 
culo  animse  mete  morte  nephandissima 
finies  vitam  tuam.”  (Ang.  Sac.  i.  49.) 
Rinaldi  looks  on  his  death  by  the  hands 
of  the  Wyclifites  (as  the  annalist  re¬ 
presents  it)  as  a  judgment  on  his  “seg- 
nities  ”  in  dealing  with  Wyclifism. 
(1381.  29.)  It  may  be  noted,  as  an  in¬ 
stance  of  the  power  vested  in  the  prior 
and  monks  of  the  cathedral  during  the 
vacancy  of  the  see,  that  we  find  them 
issuing  orders  to  the  bishops,  through 
the  provincial  dean,  the  bishop  of  Lon¬ 
don,  for  denouncing  the  archbishop’s 
murderers.  •  Wilk.  iii.  153.  (See 
above,  p.  163.) 

(i  Langham,  in  1366,  orders  that  he 
should  be  cited  for  preaching  “  multi  - 
plices  errores  et  scandala.”  (Wilk.  iii. 
64.)  Sudbury,  in  1381,  orders  that  he 
should  be  denounced  as  excommuni¬ 
cate,  and  mentions  that  he  had  been 
censured  by  Islip.  (Ib.  152.)  See  Ber- 
genroth,  285,  who  connects  Ball’s  pro¬ 
ceedings  with  the  effects  of  the  “black 


death  ”  (sup.  p.  164)  ;  Lechler,  i.  660-2. 

r  Knyghton,  2634 ;  Walsingh.  ii.  32 ; 
Froiss.  viii.  15.  Froissart’s  account  of 
this  insurrection  is  the  most  animated, 
and  seems  to  be  in  the  main  correct, 
although  we  may  question  his  opinion 
that  the  movement  was  caused  by  the 
too  great  prosperity  of  the  “menu 
peuple.”  (p.  13.)  There  is  a  full  his¬ 
tory  of  the  manner  in  which  St.  Alban’s 
was  affected  by  the  rising,  GestaAbba- 
tum  S.  Alb.  iii.  285,  seqq. 

8  Rinaldi  calls  him  Joannes  Stravus. 
1381.  40. 

*  Lewis,  180  ;  Milm.  v.  508.  Straw 
was  induced  to  confess  by  a  promise  of 
masses  for  his  soul.  He  makes  no 
mention  of  Wyclifism,  but  says  that 
his  party  would  have  destroyed  the 
bishops  and  all  the  higher  clergy, 
down  to  rectors,  allowing  the  mendi¬ 
cants  alone  to  live  for  the  purpose  of 
performing  the  offices  of  the  church. 
Walsingh.  ii.  10. 

u  See  Knyghton,  2635  ;  Walsingh. 
i.  457.  It  is  said  that  they  threw  the 
duke’s  jocalia  into  the  Thames,  de¬ 
claring  “Nolumus  esse  fures.”  Eu- 
log.  Hist.  iii.  352 ;  cf.  Introd.  lxx. 


282 


ARCHBISHOP  COURTENAY. 


Book  VI I L 


Norwich,  who  had  obtained  his  see  as  a  reward  for  military 
services  rendered  to  Urban  V.  in  Italy.*  He  took  the 
field  in  armour,  delivered  Peterborough  from  the  insur¬ 
gents,  contributed  to  discomfit  them  in  the  neighbouring 
counties,  and,  when  peace  had  been  restored,  made  over 
the  local  ringleaders  to  execution,  after  having,  in  his 
episcopal  character,  administered  to  them  the  last  conso¬ 
lations  of  religion.7 

For  Wyclif  the  result  of  the  insurrection  was  unfavour¬ 
able,  as  the  place  of  the  murdered  primate  was  filled  by 
his  old  enemy  Courtenay,  who  was  not  likely  to  distinguish 
in  his  favour  between  political  and  doctrinal  innovations. 

May  17,  Immediately  after  having  received  his  pall, 
J3^2.  new  archbishop  brought  the  question  of 

Wyclifs  opinions  before  a  council  of  bishops,  and  other 
ecclesiastics  (mostly  belonging  to  the  mendicant  orders), 
with  some  lawyers,  which  met  at  the  Dominican  convent 
in  Holborn.2  As  the  session  was  about  to  begin,  a 
shock  of  an  earthquake  was  felt,  and  some  of  the  members 
in  alarm  proposed  an  adjournment ;  but  the  archbishop, 
undisturbed  by  the  omen,  declared  that  it  signified  the 
purging  of  the  kingdom  from  heresy.a  Wyclif  was  not 
present,  nor  does  it  appear  that  he  had  been  cited  to 
defend  himself;  but  twenty-two  propositions  were  brought 
forward  as  having  been  maintained  by  him — ten  of  them 
being  branded  as  heretical,  while  the  others  were  only 
designated  as  errors.  Among  the  heresies  were  the 
assertions  that  the  material  substance  of  bread  and  wine 


x  Capgrave  de  Illustr.  Henricis,  170. 
“  Vir  nec  litteris  nec  discretione  prse- 
ditus,  juvenis  effrsenis  et  insolens.” 
Chron.  Anglise,  ed.  Thompson,  258. 

y  Capgr.  1 70-1 ;  Knyghton,  2638-9; 
Walsingh.  ii.  8-1  x. 

*  Shirley,  43.  See  Hook,  iv.  348. 
Nine  bishops  are  named  in  the  Fascic. 
Ziz.  286,  498  ;  among  these  is  William 
Bottlesham,  Nanatensis  (?),  who,  ac¬ 


cording  to  Godwin  (607),  was  made 
bishop  of  Bethlehem  by  the  pope,  and 
was  afterwards  appointed  to  LlandafT 
and  Rochester.  See  Wharton,  Angl. 
Sac.  i.  379. 

*  Knyghton,  2647  ;  Walsingh.  ii. 
57  i  Wright,  Pol.  Songs,  i.  250,  seqq.  * 
Lewis,  82.  In  the  Fascic.  Ziz.  272, 
this  seems  to  be  given  as  the  writer's 
interpretation. 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1382.  SYNOD  OF  THE  EARTHQUAKE. 


283 


remains  in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar ;  that  accidents  do 
not  remain  in  it  without  a  subject;  that  Christ  is  not  in 
it  “  identically,  truly,  and  really,  in  His  proper  bodily 
substance  ”  ;  that  the  ministrations  of  bishops  and  priests 
who  are  in  mortal  sin,  and  the  claims  of  evil  popes  over 
Christ's  faithful  people,  are  null ;  that  contrition  super¬ 
sedes  the  necessity  of  outward  confession ;  that  God 
ought  to  obey  the  devil ;  b  that  since  Urban  VI.  no  one 
was  to  be  received  as  pope,  but  the  Christians  of  the 
west  ought  to  live,  like  the  Greeks,  under  their  own 
laws;  and  that  it  was  contrary  to  Holy  Scripture  for 
clergymen  to  hold  temporal  possessions. 

Among  the  propositions  noted  as  erroneous  were 
several  relating  to  the  effect  of  excommunication ;  the 
assertions  already  mentioned  as  to  the  power  of  secular 
persons  to  take  away  ecclesiastical  endowments,  with 
others  of  like  tendency;  and  some  denials  of  the  utility 
of  the  monastic  life.0 

The  council  held  five  sessions,  and  in  the  meantime  the 
archbishop  wrote  to  Oxford,  denouncing  the  preaching  of 
uncommissioned  persons,  and  ordering  that  the  opinions 
of  Wyclif  should  be  suppressed  in  the  university.11  The 
council  condemned  the  doctrines  which  were  brought 


May  28. 


before  it,  and  three  of  Wyclif’s  most  prominent  followers 
— Philip  Repyngdon,  Nicolas  Hereford,6  and 
John  Ayshton — after  having  been  examined 
before  the  primate,  were  sentenced  to  various  punishments. 
The  archbishop  brought  the  matter  before  the  house  of 
lords,  and  an  order  was  obtained  from  the  crown,  by 
which  the  sheriffs  were  required  to  assist  the  officers  of 
the  bishops  in  arresting  heretics.  But  in  the  following 
session,  the  bill  which  the  lords  had  passed  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  archbishop’s  wishes  was  disowned  by  the 


b  See  below,  p.  293. 
c  Fascic.  277-82 ;  Walsingh.  ii.  58-9. 


d  Fascic.  274,  seqq. 

8  See  Hereford’s  propositions,  ib.  303. 


284 


PROCEEDINGS  AT  OXFORD. 


Book  VIII. 


commons,  who  declared  that  they  had  never  assented  to 
it,  and  prayed  the  king  that  it  might  be  annulled ;  chiefly, 
it  would  seem,  in  consequence  of  a  petition  which  Wyclif 
had  addressed  to  the  king  and  to  the  parliament.1 

The  reforming  party  was  now  attacked  in  Oxford,  which 
was  its  chief  stronghold.  The  chancellor,  Robert  Rygge, 
although  he  had  subscribed  the  former  condemnation,8 
was  inclined  to  favour  the  Wyclifites,  and  to  maintain 
the  exemption  of  the  university  from  the  power  of  the 
archbishop  arid  bishops.11  He  appointed  Repyngdon,  and 
others  of  like  opinions,  to  preach  on  some  public  occa¬ 
sions.  On  being  required  by  the  archbishop  to  publish 
a  denunciation  of  Wyclifism,  he  declared  that  to  do  so 
might  endanger  his  life.1  And  when  a  Carmelite,  named 
Stokes,  appeared  at  Oxford,  with  a  commission  to  carry 
out  the  archbishop’s  mandate,  it  is  said  that  the  chan¬ 
cellor  made  a  display  of  armed  men,  so  that  the  friar 
withdrew  in  terror,  without  having  executed  his  task.k 
Rygge  was,  however,  compelled  to  appear  in  London, 
with  the  proctors  of  the  university,  and  to  ask  pardon  on 
his  knees  for  having  favoured  Wyclifism.  He  was  com¬ 
manded  by  the  archbishop  to  allow  no  new  doctrines  to  be 
taught  or  held;1  and,  in  obedience  to  a  royal 
Ju  >  3-  orderm  (which  had,  perhaps,  been  obtained 
by  representing  Wyclifs  opinions  as  connected  with  the 
late  revolutionary  movements),  he  published 
July  r5-  the  suspension  of  Repyngdon  and  Hereford.11 
The  bishop  of  Lincoln,  Bokyngham,  within  whose  diocese 
Oxford  was  situated,  exerted  himself  vigorously  for  the 
suppression  of  Wyclifism  in  the  university.0  Repyngdon, 


f  Hallam,  M.  A.  ii.  220 ;  Pauli,  iv.  Pauli,  iv.  551.  k  Fascic.  302,  304. 
549-52.  See  Gibson,  Codex,  i.  400,  1  lb.  304-8. 

ed.  1.  m  lb.  312  ;  Rymer,  vii.  363. 

s  Fascic.  113.  h  lb.  299.  n  Wilk.  iii.  166,  168;  Knyghton, 

*  lb.  299,  306,  31 1  ;  Walsingh.  ii.  2655 ;  Lewis,  95. 

60;  Lewis,  93-4;  Vaughan,  280-4;  0  Knyghton,  2651 ;  Fascic.  330. 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1382-3.  WYCLIF’S  FOLLOWERS. 


285 


Hereford,  and  Ayshton  recanted,  after  having  in  vain 
attempted  to  gain  the  intercession  of  the  duke  of  Lancas¬ 
ter;  but  their  explanations  were  not  deemed  sufficient, 
and  it  was  not  without  much  trouble  that  they  procured 
their  restoration/  Hereford,  in  order  to  clear  his  ortho¬ 
doxy,  went  to  Rome,  where  he  was  committed  to  prison 
by  Urban  VI.,  who,  in  consideration  of  the  support  which 
he  had  received  from  England,  was  unwilling  to  inflict 
the  extreme  punishment  of  heresy  on  any  Englishman. 
Having  recovered  his  liberty  through  a  popular  outbreak 
while  the  pope  w~s  shut  up  in  Nocera,  Hereford  re¬ 
turned  to  England,  where  he  was  again  imprisoned  by 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  was  denounced  by  the 
bishop  of  Worcester  as  a  preacher  of  Lollardy  in  1387;  and 
ended  his  days  as  a  Carthusian  monk.*!  Repyngdon  be¬ 
came  one  of  the  bitterest  opponents  of  the  party  to  which 
he  had  once  belonged  ;  and  his  zeal  was  rewarded  with  the 
bishoprick  of  Lincoln,  and  with  the  dignity  of  cardinal/ 
According  to  some  writers,  Wyclif  himself  appeared  before 
the  archbishop  and  other  prelates  at  Oxford,  and  explained 

himself  in  terms  which  are  treated  by  his 

i  ,  ,  Nov.  1383. 

enemies  as  evasive  ;s  and  it  would  seem  that 

his  explanation  was  accepted  by  his  judges  as  sufficient  to 

justify  them  in  dismissing  him/  But  the  party  at  Oxford 

never  recovered  from  the  effects  of  these  proceedings.11 

The  remaining  two  years  of  Wyclif s  life  were  spent  in 
his  parish  of  Lutterworth  ;  and  such  was  the  effect  of  his 
labours  in  the  surrounding  country,  that,  according  to  the 
writer  who  is  known  by  the  name  of  Knyghton,  a  canon 


p  Fascic.  318-25,  329,  333 ;  Wilk. 
iii.  172.  Ayshton,  on  being  asked  by 
the  archbishop  whether  material  bread 
remained  in  the  sacrament,  answered, 
“  Illud  verbum  materialis  ponas  in 
bursa  tua,  si  quam  habes.  Wilk.  iii. 
164. 

‘i  Knyghton,  2657  ;  Wilk.  iii.  203  ; 


Lechler,  i.  694.  See  Hook,  v.  132. 
r  Ciacon.  ii.  769  ;  Godwin,  296. 

8  Knyghton,  2649.  See  Vaughan, 
310,  517  ;  Martineau,  464-7  ;  Hefele, 
vi.  827. 

*  Lewis,  88 ;  Vaughan,  310-18 ;  Hook, 
iv.  365  ;  Lechler,  i.  697. 
u  Shirley,  44. 


286 


Book  VIII. 


wyclif’s  later  works. 


of  Leicester,  “You  would  scarce  see  two  in  the  way,  but 
one  of  them  was  a  disciple  of  Wyclif.”*  During  this 
period  of  his  life  his  pen  was  actively  employed.  When 
the  warlike  bishop  Spenser,  of  Norwich,  led 
3  into  Flanders  a  rabble  of  disorderly  recruits, 
to  fight  as  crusaders  for  pope  Urban  against  pope 
Clement,  Wyclif  sent  forth  a  pamphlet  “  On  the  Schism  ” 
and  one  “  Against  the  pope’s  Crusade.”  In  these  he 
denounces  the  system  of  indulgences  in  general,  and  the 
abuse  of  holding  forth  such  privileges  as  an  inducement 
to  enlist  in  such  an  enterprise,  the  taking  of  arms  by  the 
clergy,  the  nature  of  the  war  itself,  the  secular  and  unchris¬ 
tian  motives  from  which  it  originated,  and  the  share  which 
the  mendicant  friars  had  taken  in  promoting  it.y  And 
to  this  time  belongs  one  of  his  most  remarkable  works — 

„  the  “  Trialogue,”  which,  as  its  name  intimates 

A.D.  1383-4.  ......  .  ,  , 

is  in  the  form  ot  a  conversation  between  three 

persons,  bearing  the  Greek  names  of  Aletheia,  Pseustis, 

and  Phronesis — Truth,  Deceiver,  and  Thoughtfulness. z 


x  Ap.  Tvvysd.  2663-4,  2666. 
y  See  Todd,  ‘Three  Treatises  of 
Wyclif,’  Dublin,  1851,  pp.  10,  xxxiii., 
clxxvi.  ;  Shirley,  Catalogue,  pp.  25, 
48  ;  Lewis,  98-9  ;  Vaughan,  371,  seqq. ; 
Lechler,  i.  708-11.  As  to  this  expe¬ 
dition  (which  proved  an  utter  failure), 
see  Froissart,  viii.  396,  seqq.  ;  ix.  2; 
Knyghton,  2660,  2671 ;  Walsingh.  ii. 
72-8,  84-103,  109,  141  ;  Wilkins,  iii. 
176-8.  Mr.  Arnold  sees  a  reference  to 
it  in  Wycl.  Serm.  i.  115,  136.  In  the 
‘  Eulogium  Historiarum,’  Spenser  is 
described  as  “magis  militari  levitate 
dissolutus  quam  pontificali  maturitate 
solidus.”  (ii.  356.)  Capgrave  argues 
that  ecclesiastics  who  live  on  alms  and 
tithes  only  must  not  fight ;  but  that 
those  who  have  castles,  etc.,  may  be 
present  in  expeditions,  not  only  against 
infidels,  but  against  false  Christians, 
yet  must  not  themselves  take  arms. 
De  Illustr.  Henricis,  74. 


*  This  was  printed  in  1525,  probably 
at  Basel,  and  was  the  first  of  Wyclifs 
books  that  appeared  in  type.  In  that 
edition  it  is  styled  *  Zhalogorum  libri 
iiii.' ;  but  the  title  of  Dialogue  rather 
belongs  to  another  of  the  reformer’s 
works — the  ‘  Dialogus  sive  speculum 
ecclesiae  militantis.'  The  Trialogus 
was  edited  for  the  Oxford  university 
press  in  1864,  by  Prof.  Lechler,  of 
Leipzig,  who  has  since  published  a 
valuable  work  on  Wyclif  and  other 
precursors  of  the  Reformation.  (Leipz 
1873.)  Dr.  Lechler  points  out  that  the 
name  is  formed  by  a  false  analogy,  as 
if  dialogus  were  derived  from  Svo  (p.  6) 
Of  the  personages,  Aletheia  is  described 
in  the  prologue  (39)  as  speaking  “  tan- 
quam  solidus  philosophus,”  but  is  styled 
a  sister  (eg.,  p.  40  ;  cf.  Lechler,  8) 
Pseustis  (i.e.  ifjfvirrqs)  is  said  to  be  “in- 
fidelis  et  captiosus  ”  ;  while  Phronesis, 
who  notwithstanding  the  feminine  form 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1383-4. 


THE  “  TRIALOGUE.” 


287 


In  this  book  Wyclif  lays  down  a  rigid  doctrine  of  predesti¬ 
nation.11  He  exposes  the  popular  errors  of  reliance  on  the 
saints,  declaring  Christ  to  be  a  better,  readier,  and  more 
benign  mediator  than  any  of  them ; h  he  mentions  without 
disapproval  the  opinion  of  some  who  would  abolish  all 
festivals  of  the  saints,  and  who  blame  the  church  for 
canonizing  men,  inasmuch  as  without  revelation  it  can  no 
more  know  the  sanctity  of  the  persons  so  honoured  than 
prester  John  or  the  soldan.c  In  like  manner  he  reprobates 
indulgences,  on  the  ground  that  the  prelates  who  grant 
them  pretend  foolishly,  greedily,  and  blasphemously  to  a 
knowledge  which  is  beyond  their  reach. d  He  maintains 
the  superiority  of  Holy  Scripture  to  all  other  laws;e  if 
there  were  a  hundred  popes,  and  all  the  friars  were  turned 
into  cardinals,  their  opinion  ought  not  to  be  believed, 
except  in  so  far  as  it  is  founded  on  Scripture.1  It  is 
chiefly  in  the  last  book  of  the  Trialogue  that  Wyclif 
shows  himself  as  a  reformer.  He  states  his  doctrine  of  the 
eucharist,  which,  he  says,  had  been  held  by  the  church 
until  Satan  was  let  loose.g  As  to  the  hierarchy,  he  says 
that  the  only  orders  were  originally  those  of  priest  and 
deacon,  that  bishops  were  the  same  with  the  priests,  and 
that  the  other  orders  were  the  inventions  of  “  Caesarean  ” 
pride.11  The  pope  he  considers  to  be  probably  the  great 
antichrist,  and  the  “  Caesarean  ”  prelates  to  be  the  lesser 
antichrists,  as  being  utterly  opposite  to  their  pretensions 
as  Christ's  vicar  and  his  representatives.1  He  declares 
himself  strongly  against  the  endowments  of  the  church; 
he  tells  the  story  of  the  angel’s  lamentation  over  the  gift 

of  the  name,  is  a  male  person,  is  de-  s  L.  iv.  4,  2,  10,  29  ;  also  1.  ii.  c.  7, 
scribed  as  “subtilis  theologus  et  matu-  p.  153.  Again:  “  Sed  ut  certe  scio, 
rus.”  a  iL  14  ;  iii.  7-8.  b  iii.  30.  omnes  fratres  mundi  non  possunt  docere 
c  lb.  p.  237.  d  ii.  7,  p.  152.  aliquem  nec  seipsos,  quid  sit  illud  acci- 

0  iii.  31.  There  is  a  puzzling  pas-  dens  sine  subjecto,  quod  sic  consecrant 
sage  about  people  who  disparage  Scrip-  et  adorant.”  iv.  38,  p.  383.  See  as 
ture,  and  especially  St.  John’s  Gospel,  to  Grossetete’s  opposite  belief,  c.  6,  p. 
P-  241.  f  iv.  7,  p.  266.  265.  h  lb.  15.  i  iii  17. 


288 


WYCLIF’s  “  TRIALOGUE.” 


Boon.  VIII. 


of  Constantine, k  to  which  he  traces  all  the  corruptions, 
abuses,  and  decay  of  later  times ;  he  holds  that  the  error 
of  Constantine  and  others,  who  thought  by  such  means 
to  benefit  the  church,  was  greater  than  that  of  St.  Paul 
in  persecuting  it ;  nay,  he  says  that  the  princes  who  en¬ 
dowed  the  church  are  liable  to  the  punishment  of  hell  for 
so  doing.1  And,  as  a  simple  remedy  for  the  evils  of  the 
case,  he  recommends  that  the  king,  on  getting  the  tempo¬ 
ralities  of  a  bishoprick  or  of  an  abbacy  into  his  hands 
through  a  vacancy,  should  avoid  the  mistake  of  restoring 
them  to  the  next  incumbent.111  He  denies  the  necessity 
of  confession,  and  attacks  the  penitential  system,  as  also 
indulgences  and  the  sacrament  of  extreme  unction.11  And 
he  is  severe  against  the  clergy — more  especially  against 
the  monks,  canons,  and  friars.  These  last  he  traces 
to  antichrist,  and  declares  to  be  the  means  of  spreading 
all  heresies;0  he  even  charges  their  idle  and  luxurious 
lives  with  rendering  the  land  less  productive  and  the 
air  unwholesome,  and  so  with  causing  pestilences  and 
epidemics. p 

Although  Wyclifs  last  years  appear  to  have  been 


k  iv.  15  ;  Supplem.  409.  See  vol.  vi. 
p.  404.  The  Supplement,  published  for 
the  first  time  by  Prof.  Lechler,  is  against 
endowments.  In  form  it  is  not  a  dia¬ 
logue,  but  an  argument  in  the  scholastic 
method. 

1  Trialog.  iv.  17-18.  Cf.  iii.  10. 
m  iv.  19.  n  lb.  23-5,  32. 

0  lb.  26-39.  See  above,  p.  274. 
p  iv*  35,  P-  37°-  Wyclif  acknow¬ 
ledges  that  Dominic  and  Francis  were 
holy  and  devout  men,  but  thinks  that, 
from  a  want  of  prudence,  they  erred 
in  instituting  their  orders  by  way  of 
remedy  for  the  evils  which  had  grown 
on  the  church  since  Satan  was  let 
loose,  (iv.  33.)  Formerly,  as  in  the 
time  of  Fitzralph,  bishops  and  friars 
were  hostile  to  each  other,  but  now 
Herod  and  Pilate  had  become  friends 


(ib.  36,  p,  375).  The  friars  are  “  Caimi- 
tica  institutio,”  the  names  of  the  orders, 
according  to  their  pretended  seniority, 
forming  by  their  initials  that  of  the  first 
murderer.  Thus ; — 

Carmelites, 

A  ugustinians, 

/acobites, 

Afinorites. 

(iv,  17,  p.  306;  33,  p.  362),  and  the 
voice  of  Abel  cries  to  the  Lord  against 
them.  (p.  362.)  He  rejects,  however, 
the  claims  of  the  Carmelites  to  founda¬ 
tion  by  Elijah,  and  that  of  the  Austin 
friars  to  foundation  by  the  great  bishop 
of  Hippo,  (v.  33;  Suppl.  c.  6,  p.  436.) 
Against  the  connexion  with  Cain,  see 
Woodford  in  Fascic.  Rer.  Expet.  et 
Fug.  i.  264,  who  objects,  among  other 
things,  to  the  substitution  of  m  for  n. 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1382-4. 


DEATH  OF  WYCLIF. 


289 


wholly  passed  in  his  retirement,  his  constant  and  varied 
activity,  and  the  influence  which  he  exercised,  were  not 
to  be  overlooked  ;  and  it  has  been  supposed  that  in 
1384  he  received  a  citation  to  appear  before  Urban  VI. 
The  paper  which  is  commonly  regarded  as  his  answer 
does  not  clearly  state  the  grounds  on  which  he  excused 
himself ;  but  he  had  been  disabled  by  illness,  and  espe¬ 
cially  by  a  stroke  of  palsy.  On  the  28th  of  December 
1384,  as  he  was  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  church,  he 
was  struck  down  by  a  second  attack  of  the  same  sort : 
and  on  the  last  day  of  the  year  he  expired.  His  enemies 
found  a  pleasure  in  relating  that  his  seizure  took  place 
on  the  festival  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury,  the  champion 
and  martyr  of  the  hierarchical  claims,  and  that  he  died 
on  the  festival  of  St.  Sylvester,  the  pope  on  whom  the  first 
Christian  emperor  was  supposed  to  have  bestowed  those 
privileges  and  endowments  which  Wyclif  had  pertinaciously 
assailed.1. 

It  is  remarkable  that,  although  Wyclif  had  many  points 
in  common  with  the  Waldenses,  he  never  shows  any  trace 
of  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  that  party,  but  seems 
to  have  formed  his  opinions  in  entire  independence  of 
them.s  Attempts  have  been  made  to  connect  him  with 


1  “  Et  si  in  persona  propria  ad  votum 
potero  laborare,  vellem  praesentiam  Ro¬ 
mani  pontificis  humiliter  visitare.  Sed 
Deus  necessitavit  me  ad  contrarium  ; 
et  communiter  me  docuit  plus  Deo 
quam  hominibus  obedire.”  (Fascic. 
342  ;  Lewis,  Append,  xviii.)  Lechler 
(i.  712-15)  thinks  that  it  was  not  a  letter, 
nor  addressed  to  the  pope,  but  was 
perhaps  part  of  a  sermon,  and  written 
at  the*  time  when  Nicolas  Hereford 
was  summoned  to  Rome  :  and,  as  there 
is  no  other  contemporary  evidence  of 
Wyclif’s  having  been  cited  by  the  pope, 
he  rejects  the  statement  to  that  effect. 

r  Lewis,  101.  Walsingham  records 
the  end  of  Wyclif’s  life  with  exultation, 

VOL.  VII. 


and  says  that  he  was  believed  to  have 
intended  to  blaspheme  St.  Thomas  in 
his  sermon  on  the  festival.  He  styles 
Wyclif  “organum  diabolicum,  hostis 
ecclesise,  confusio  vulgi,  haereticorum 
idolum,  hypocritarum  speculum,  schis- 
matisincentor.odii  seminator,  mendacii 
fabricator,”  etc.  (ii.  1x9).  But  it  would 
seem  that  the  seizure  was  really  one 
day  earlier,  on  the  festival  of  the  holy 
Innocents.  See  Lechler,  i.  719-21, 
who  also  points  out  that,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  his  curate,  John  Horn, 
Wyclif  was  not  (as  his  enemies  repre¬ 
sented)  celebrating,  but  hearing  mass. 
722. 

8  Bohringer’s  Wiclef,  4. 

19 


290 


OPINIONS  OF 


Book  VI IT. 


the  school  of  Joachim  of  Fiore ;  but  although  the  con¬ 
stant  use  of  the  word  gospel  may  naturally  recal  to  our 
minds  the  “  everlasting  gospel  ”  of  the  earlier  party, — 
although  there  was  in  both  parties  a  tendency  to  apoca¬ 
lyptic  speculations,  and  although  Wyclif’s  followers  were 
infected  with  that  fondness  for  prophecies,  partly  of  a 
religious  and  partly  of  a  political  tendency,  which  had 
prevailed  widely  from  the  time  of  Joachim  downwards, — 
it  would  seem  that  these  resemblances  are  no  proof  of 
any  real  connexion.1 

Wyclif  opposed,  either  entirely  or  in  their  more  ex¬ 
aggerated  forms,  most  of  the  corruptions  and  superstitions 
which  had  grown  on  the  church — such  as  the  system  of 
indulgences,  the  reliance  on  the  merits  of  the  saints,  the 
trust  in  supposed  miracles  ;  and  if  he  held  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  and  allowed  the  utility  of  prayers  and  masses 
for  the  departed,  he  was  careful  to  guard  against  the 
popular  errors  connected  with  these  beliefs.11  He  denied 
the  usual  distinctions  of  mortal  and  venial  sin.x  He  re¬ 
garded  confession  as  wholesome,  but  not  as  necessary ; 
he  limited  the  priestly  power  of  absolution  to  that  of 
declaring  God’s  forgiveness  to  the  truly  contrite,  and 
blamed  the  clergy  for  pretending  to  something  more  than 
this.y  He  denied  the  effect  of  excommunication,  unless 
when  uttered  for  just  reason,  in  the  cause  of  God,  and 
agreeably  to  the  law  of  Christ.2  He  opposed  compulsory 
celibacy,  and  the  practice  of  binding  young  persons  to  the 
monastic  life  before  their  own  experience  and  will  could 
guide  them  in  the  choice  of  it.a  With  regard  to  marriage 
he  is  said  to  have  held  some  singular  opinions — that  it 
had  been  instituted  as  a  means  of  filling  up  the  places  of 

4  See  Milm.  v.  516.  Walsingh.  i.  359. 

u  Lewis,  130,  137  ;  Hardw.  415 ;  *  Fascic.  250. 

Lechler,  i.  557-9,  563,  etc.  a  Works,  iii.  392;  Lewis,  134 ;  Neand. 

x  Serm.  i.  61  ;  Lewis,  130.  ix.  203.  He  speaks  against  the  mar- 

y  lb.  136 ;  Neand.  ix.  245-6.  See  riage  of  the  clergy  (iii.  224),  but  see 
Serm.  i.  35,  47-8,  etc.  ;  Works,  iii.  252  ;  Lechler,  i.  571. 


Ciiap.  VI. 


WYCLIF, 


29I 


the  fallen  angels, b  and  that  the  prohibition  of  marriage 
even  between  the  nearest  relations  had  no  other  foundation 
than  human  law.c  He  admitted  the  seven  sacraments,  but 
not  as  all  standing  on  the  same  level  ;d  and  he  found 
fault  with  confirmation,  as  involving  a  pretension  on  the 
part  of  bishops  to  give  the  Holy  Spirit  in  a  new  way,  and 
thus  to  do  more  than  give  that  Holy  Spirit  who  was  be¬ 
stowed  in  baptism.e  He  objected  to  the  prevailing  excess 
of  ceremonies,  although  he  admitted  that  some  ceremonies 
were  necessary  and  expedient.1  As  to  the  splendour  of 
churches,  he  rejects  the  authority  of  Solomon — an  idola¬ 
trous  and  lascivious  king  under  the  old  covenant — foras¬ 
much  as  our  Lord  himself  prophesied  the  destruction  of 
the  Temple.6  He  did  not  condemn  images  absolutely, 
but  the  abuses  connected  with  the  reverence  for  them,h 
He  also  found  fault  with  the  elaborate  music  which  had 
come  into  use  in  the  church,  declaring  it  to  be  a  hindrance 
to  study  and  preaching,  and  ridiculing  the  disposal  of 
money  in  foundations  for  such  purposes.1 

As  to  the  constitution  of  the  church,  Wyclif  held  that 
God  had  not  bestowed  on  any  man  that  plenitude  of 
power  which  was  claimed  by  the  papacy  ; k  and,  while  he 
did  not  refuse  to  style  the  pope  Christ’s  vicar,  he  con¬ 
sidered  that  the  emperor  was  also  His  vicar  in  the 
temporal  sphere;1  that  even  the  pope  might  be  rebuked, 
and  that  even  by  lavmen.m  With  some  of  the  schoolmen  n 
he  held  (as  we  have  seen)  that  bishops  and  priests  were 


b  Lewis,  140. 
c  Trial,  iv.  20,  p.  318. 
o  lb.  iv.  1  ;  Lewis,  344. 
e  Trial,  iv.  14,  p.  293. 
f  Lewis,  248. 

s  Lechler,  i.  554,  from  MSS. 

**  Ib’  555' 

*  Ib.  132 ;  Works,  iii.  228.  Mr. 
Arnold  makes  him  object  to  the 
“  synsynge  and  criynge  that  men  use 
now,”  and  interprets  synsynge  by  in¬ 


censing.  (hi.  203.)  But  the  context 
seems  to  show  that  the  word  ought  to 
be  syngynge. 

k  Shirley,  65.  For  the  progress  of 
his  opinions  in  opposition  to  tho  papacy 
see  Lechler,  i.  575-83. 

1  Shirley,  65. 

m  Fascic.  256. 

n  See  Palmer  on  the  Church,  ed.  1, 
vol.  ii.  374-6. 


292 


wyclif’s  opinions. 


Book  VIII. 


one  and  the  same  order ;  but  it  does  not  appear  that  he 
countenanced  the  practice  of  some  of  his  followers,  who 
claimed  for  presbyters  the  power  of  ordination.  We  have 
already  seen  that  he  wished  the  clergy  to  cast  themselves, 
like  those  of  the  first  days,  on  the  oblations  of  the  faithful 
for  maintenance ;  that  he  would  have  allowed  them  to 
enjoy  only  so  much  as  was  absolutely  necessary,  and 
held  it  to  be  the  duty  of  secular  lords  to  take  away  from 
them  such  endowments  as  were  abused.  But  he  disavowed 
the  idea  that  this  was  to  be  done  arbitrarily,  and  limited 
the  exercise  of  the  right  by  the  conditions  of  civil,  eccle¬ 
siastical,  and  evangelical  law.0  And,  although  his  enemies 
are  never  found  to  charge  him  with  inconsistency,  he 
confessed  that  his  own  practice  had  been  short  of  his 
theory, — that  he  had  spent  on  himself  that  which  ought 
to  have  been  given  to  the  poor.p 

In  some  respects  Wyclif  seems  to  have  been  justly 
chargeable  with  the  use  of  language  which  was  likely 
not  only  to  be  misunderstood  by  his  opponents,  but  to 
mislead  his  partisans.  Thus  the  proposition  that  “  Do¬ 
minion  is  founded  in  grace  ”  seems  to  imply  a  principle 
of  unlimited  anarchy  and  fanaticism,  but  is  explained  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  lose  much  of  its  alarming  character. 
Wyclif’s  conception  of  dominion  was  altogether  modelled 
on  the  feudal  system.  He  believed  that  God,  to  whom 
alone  dominion  could  properly  belong,  had  granted  in  fee 
(as  it  were)  certain  portions  of  His  dominion  over  the 
world,  on  condition  of  obedience  to  His  commandments, 
and  that  such  grants  were  vitiated  by  mortal  sin  in  the 
holders.^  But  this  Wyclif  admitted  to  be  an  ideal  view, 
which  must  be  modified  in  order  to  accord  with  the  facts 
of  the  case  ;r  and  by  way  of  corrective  he  advanced 

•  Walsingh.  i.  359  ;  Fascic.  249,  254.  nullus  est  praclatus,  dum  est  In  peccato 

P  Milm.  v.  516;  Shirley,  46.  mortali.”  Walsingh.  ii.  53. 

lb.  63;  Trialog.  iv.  19.  ‘'Nullus  r  See  Lewis,  342;  Neand.  Ix.  210; 
est  dominus  civilis,  nullus  episcopus,  Shirley,  62. 


Chap.  VI. 


HIS  DOUBTFUL  LANGUAGE. 


293 


another  proposition,  of  at  least  equally  startling  appear¬ 
ance — that  “  God  ought  to  obey  the  devil.” 8  In  other 
words,  as  God  suffers  evil  in  this  world — as  the  Saviour 
submitted  to  be  tempted  by  the  devil — so  obedience  is 
due  by  Christians  to  constituted  authority,  however  un¬ 
worthy  the  holders  of  it  may  be.  The  wicked,  although 
they  could  not  have  dominion  in  its  proper  sense,  might 
yet  have  power,  so  as  to  be  entitled  to  obedience.  And 
thus  there  is  no  ground  for  the  imputations  which  have 
been  cast  on  him  by  his  enemies  as  if  he  had  advocated 
the  principles  of  insurrection  and  tyrannicide.1  Wyclif 
considered  that,  while  the  pope  and  the  king  are  each 
supreme  in  his  own  department,  every  Christian  man 
holds  of  God,  although  not  “  in  chief”  ;  and  that  hence 
the  final  court  of  appeal  is  not  that  of  the  pope,  but  of 
God.u  In  like  manner,  when  he  asserted  that  one  who 
was  in  mortal  sin  could  not  administer  the  sacraments, 
the  proposition  was  softened  by  an  explanation — that  a 
man  in  such  a  condition  might  administer  the  sacraments 
validly,  although  to  his  own  condemnation.* 

Wyclif’s  opinions  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist 
have  been  already  stated.  On  predestination  and  the 
subjects  connected  with  it,  his  views  were  such  that  his 
admirers  are  said  to  have  given  him  a  name  derived  from 
that  of  St.  Augustine.y  He  held  that  all  things  take 
place  by  absolute  necessity ;  that  even  God  himself 


»  He  Is  said  to  have  disavowed  this 
(Lewis,  96),  and  it  has  been  supposed 
to  be  an  inference  of  his  enemies.  But 
Dr.  Shirley  quotes  a  passage  in  which 
Wyclif  defends  it  (p.  64) ;  cf.  Lechler, 
i.  672. 

1  See  Knyghton,  262  ;  Lewis,  116, 
176. 

u  Shirley,  66.  “  The  education  of 

the  individual  conscience  to  independ¬ 
ence  could  not  be  effected  in  a  day. 
Upon  the  generality  of  thoughtful  men 


in  his  day  the  external  authority  of  the 
church  of  Rome  had  a  hold  which  they 
could  not  shake  off :  again  and  again 
the  most  devoted  of  Wyclif’s  disciples 
aie  found  returning,  with  recantation, 
to  the  bosom  of  the  church,  unable  to 
bear  their  terrible  isolation.”  Ib. 

*  Lewis,  96,  xi  7. 

y  ”  Sui  discipuli  vocabant  eum  fa- 
moso  et  elato  nomine  Joanne  in  A  ugus 
tini."  Thom.  Waldensis,  ‘Doctrinale, 
i.  34,  quoted  by  Lechler,  i.  506. 


294 


WYCLIF. 


Book  VIII. 


cannot  do  otherwise  than  he  actually  does  ;*  that  no 
predestined  person  could  be  finally  obdurate  or  could 
be  lost ;  that  no  one  who  was  “  foreknown  ”  would  have 
the  gift  of  final  perseverance,  or  could  be  saved ;  and  that 
while  in  the  body  we  can  have  no  certainty  who  those 
are  that  belong  to  the  one  class  or  to  the  other.a  Yet 
with  these  opinions  it  is  said  that  he  professed  to  recon¬ 
cile  a  belief  in  the  freedom  of  man’s  will,  so  that  in  this 
respect  he  expressed  his  dissent  from  the  teachers  whom 
he  most  revered,  as  Augustine  b  and  Bradwardine.  Philo¬ 
sophy  mingled  largely  with  his  theology ;  he  maintained 
that  true  philosophy  and  true  theology  must  go  together  ; 
and  thus,  as  his  own  views  were  strongly  realistic,  he 
concluded  that  the  nominalists  could  not  receive  the 
truth  of  Holy  Scripture.0 

A  document  is  extant  which  professes  to  be  a  testi¬ 
monial  in  favour  of  Wyclif,  granted  by  the  university  of 
Oxford  in  1406  ;d  but  it  is  very  inconsistent  with  what  is 
known  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  university  authorities 
towards  his  memory  at  that  time,  and  it  is  supposed  to 
have  been  forged  by  a  noted  Wyclifite  named  Peter 
Payne,  who  published  it  in  Bohemia.e 


*  “  Omnia  quae  eveniunt  necessarib 
absolute  eveniunt.  Et  sic  Deus  non 
potest  quidquam  producere  vel  intelli- 
gere,  nisi  quod  de  facto  intelligit  et 
producit.”  Trial,  iii.  8,  pp.  154-5. 

a  lb.  I.  iii.  7 ;  Neand.  ix.  240-1 ; 
Lechler,  i.  543-53. 

b  lb.  505.  “  It  is  plain  that  from 

Wickliflf’s  doctrine  will  follow  uncon¬ 
ditional  necessity,  and  the  denial  of 
free-will  and  of  contingency.”  Neand. 
ix.  241. 

c  Trial,  ii.  3,  p.  85  ;  Neand.  ix.  238. 

d  Wilk.  iii.  302. 

e  Wood's  Hist,  of  Oxford,  ed.  Gutch, 
i.  542.  Lewis  gives  the  document. 
Append,  xxi.,  and  defends  it,  pp.  274- 
5.  It  bore  the  seal  of  the  university, 
which  Payne  is  supposed  to  have  got 


into  his  hands  in  consequence  of  its 
having  been  carelessly  kept.  (Hardw. 
420.)  The  convocation  of  Canterbury, 
in  14 1 1,  while  lamenting  the  state  of 
things  in  Oxford  generally,  mentions 
that  forged  letters  in  favour  of  heresy 
had  been  sealed  with  the  university 
seal,  and  published  in  foreign  countries. 
(Wilk.  iii.  336.)  The  English  repre¬ 
sentatives  at  the  council  of  Constance 
denounced  the  testimonial  as  a  forgery, 
and  produced  another  letter,  of  oppo¬ 
site  character,  also  under  the  univer¬ 
sity  seal.  (V.  d.  Hard t,  iv.  326.)  Je¬ 
rome  of  Prague  was  charged  with  a 
share  in  the  deception,  but  denied  this, 
and  spoke  as  if  he  had  been  himself 
deceived.  (Ib.  644.)  Prof.  Lechler 
does  not  much  benefit  the  testimonial. 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1384-94.  THE  LOLLARDS. 


295 


After  Wyclif’s  death  the  Lollards  (as  his  followers  were 
called) f  rapidly  developed  the  more  questionable  part  of 
his  opinions.*  They  became  wildly  fanatical  against  the 
Roman  church  and  the  clergy. h  Some  of  them  denied 
the  necessity  of  ordination,  maintaining  that  any  Christian 
man  or  woman,  “  being  without  sin,”  was  entitled  to  con¬ 
secrate  the  eucharist ; 1  or  they  took  it  on  themselves  to 
ordain  without  the  ministry  of  bishops.k  Some  declared 
the  sacraments  to  be  mere  dead  signs;  and,  whereas 
Wyclif  had  held  a  sabbatical  doctrine  as  to  the  Lord’s 
day,  they  denounced  the  observance  of  that  day  as  a 
remnant  of  Judaism.1  With  such  opinions  in  matters  of 
religion  were  combined  extravagances  dangerous  to  civil 
government  and  to  society ;  and  prophecies,  which  were 


by  supposing  it  to  have  been  really 
passed  by  the  convocation,  but  at  a 
thinly-attended  meeting,  in  which  the 
Wyclifites  were  the  majority,  ii.  73. 

f  This  name  was  older,  and  is  said 
to  have  been  given  as  early  as  1309  to 
some  sectaries  in  Flanders,  “  quasi 
Deum  laudantes,”  (Rayn.  1318.  44.) 
Some  derive  it  from  one  Walter  Lol¬ 
lard,  who  is  said  to  have  been  burnt 
at  Cologne  (see  D’Argentre,  i.  282) ; 
but  this  idea  seems  quite  untenable. 
(Mosh.  de  Beghardis,  272.)  Another, 
and  a  more  probable,  etymology  is 
from  lallen ,  on  account  of  the  chant¬ 
ing  to  which  the  Flemish  Lollards  were 
addicted  (Mosh.  ii.  680-9  ;  Lechler,  ii. 
4.)  Although  the  word  lolium  is  ap¬ 
plied  to  Wyclif’s  doctrines  in  Gregory 
XI’s  bull  addressed  to  Oxford  (see  p. 
271),  there  is  there  no  allusion  to  the 
name  of  Lollards  ;  but  the  derivation 
from  lolium  is  found  from  about  1382, 
and  appears  in  official  documents  as 
early  as  1387.  Lechler,  in  Herzog, 
viii.  459. 

e  Knyghton,  2706-8  ;  Walsingh.  ii. 
252.  See  as  to  the  variety  of  charac¬ 
ters  embraced  under  the  general  title  of 
Lollards,  Shirley,  67.  There  are  many 
documents  of  this  time  in  Wilkins,  iii. 


See  Knyghton,  2209-10,  2736,  etc.,  for 
proceedings  against  the  party. 

h  “  Quod  papa,  cardinales,  archiepis- 
copi,  episcopi,  archidiaconi,  decani, 
officiales,  aliaeque  omnes  personae  ma- 
jores  ecclesiae  sint  maledicti.”  (Ap. 
Knyghton,  2707.)  In  Nov.  1384  (a 
few  weeks  before  Wyclif’s  death),  and 
in  February  1385,  there  were  royal 
orders  for  protection  of  friars  against 
the  outrages  of  the  party.  (Rymer,  vii. 
447,  458.)  Among  the  opinions  of 
Swynderby,  which  he  was  made  to 
recant,  one  was  a  gross  charge  of  im¬ 
morality  against  the  clergy  : — “  Nullus 
sacerdos  in  aliquam  domum  intrat  nisi 
ad  male  tractandum  uxorem,  filiam, 
aut  ancillam  ;  et  ideo  mariti  caveant 
ne  sacerdotem  aliquem  in  domum  suam 
intrare  permittant.”  Knyghton,  2669. 

*  See  Fox,  iii.  132,  188-9,  249,  288  ; 
Rayn.  1391.  22. 

k  Walsingh.  ii.  188-9,  252-3  ;  who 
blames  the  bishops  for  their  supineness 
in  letting  the  party  alone,  but  excepts 
the  bishop  of  Norwich,  who  threatened 
to  burn  or  otherwise  put  to  death  any 
Lollard  who  should  presume  to  teach 
in  his  diocese.  Cf.  Capgrave,  252. 

1  Hardw.  418  ;  Neand.  ix.  201 


296 


LOLLARDISM. 


Book  VIII. 


in  great  part  of  political  tendency,  were  largely  circulated 
among  the  Lollards. m 

Notwithstanding  the  defection  of  some  ot  the  most 
eminent  clergy  of  the  party,  it  still  numbered  among  its 
members  many  persons  of  distinction,  who  encouraged 
the  preachers  in  their  rounds,  gathered  audiences  to  listen 
to  them,  and  afforded  them  armed  protection.11  But  its 
main  strength  lay  among  the  humbler  classes.  London 
was  a  stronghold  of  Lollardism,  as  were  also  the  counties 
of  Leicester  and  Lincoln,  where  Wyclifs  personal  influence 
had  been  especially  exerted.0 

In  1394  the  Lollards  affixed  to  the  doors  of  St.  Paul’s 
and  Westminster  Abbey  placards  in  which  the  clergy  were 
attacked  and  the  current  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  was 
impugned  ;  p  and  they  presented  to  parliament  a  petition, 
in  which  the  peculiarities  ot  their  system  were  strongly 
enounced. q  The  bishops  took  such  alarm  at  these 
movements  that  they  urgently  entreated  the  king  to  hurry 
back  from  Ireland  in  order  to  meet  the  new  dangers 
which  had  arisen  ;r  and  during  the  remaining  years  of 
Richard’s  power  active  measures  were  taken  for  the 
discouragement  of  Lollardism.8  In  1396  Boniface  IX. 
entreated  the  king  to  assist  him  in  suppressing  heresy,  as 
being  dangerous  alike  to  the  church  and  to  the  crown ; 1 
and  in  the  same  year  archbishop  Arundel,  immediately 


m  Hardw.  418.  See  Maitland,  on 
the  Lollards  (‘  Eight  Essays,’  Lond. 
1852). 

n  Knyghton,  2661-2  ;  Walsingh.  ii. 
159,  216.  Wyclif  himself  had  said  in 
one  of  his  sermons — “  But  00  comfort 
is  of  knyghttis,  that  thei  savoren  myche 
the  gospel,  and  hav  wille  to  rede  in 
Englishe  the  gospel  of  Cristis  liif.” 

Serm.  66,  vol.  i.  209.)  Walsingham 
relates  with  satisfaction  that  the  eari  of 
Salisbury,  who  had  been  a  patron  of 
the  Lollards,  was  beheaded  at  Ciren¬ 
cester,  in  1400,  “sine  Sacramento  coa- 


fessionis,  ut  fertur."  Ib.  244. 

0  See  the  ‘  Processus  contra  Lol- 
Iardos  ’  of  Leicester,  1389.  Wilk.  iii. 
208,  210-11 ;  Knyghton,  2736  ;  Fox,  iii. 
197,  seqq.  ;  Milm.  v.  521-2.  Leicester 
was  interdicted  on  account  of  Lollardy. 
Wilk.  iii.  209. 

P  Walsingh.  ii.  216. 

1  Wilk.  iii.  221-3  ;  Pauli,  iv.  597. 
r  Walsingh.  ii.  2x5-16. 

•  Fascic.  360 ;  Rymer,  vii.  805-6 ; 
viii.  87,  etc. 

‘  Schrbckh,  xxiv.  555. 


Chap.  VI.  a  d.  1394-1401.  STATUTE  AGAINST  HERETICS. 


297 


after  his  elevation  to  the  primacy,  held  a  synod,  in  which 
eighteen  propositions,  attributed  to  Wyclif,  were  con¬ 
demned.11  The  democratic  and  communistic  opinions 
which  had  become  developed  among  the  party,  while 
they  attracted  the  poorer  people,  must  have  tended  to 
alienate  those  of  higher  condition,  and  thus  were,  on  the 
whole,  disadvantageous  to  its  progress. 

But  most  especially  the  Lollards  suffered  from  the 
change  which  placed  Henry  of  Lancaster  on  the  throne 
instead  of  Richard.  Archbishop  Arundel,  their  bitter 
enemy,  had  a  powerful  hold  on  the  new  king,  whom  he 
had  greatly  aided  to  attain  the  crown  ;  and  Henry,  in 
his  feeling  of  insecurity,  was  eager  to  ally  himself  with 
the  clergy,  the  monks,  and  the  friars — so  that  under  the 
descendants  of  Wyclif s  old  patron,  John  of  Gaunt,  the 
condition  of  the  Wyclifites  became  worse  than  it  had  pre¬ 
viously  been.*  Henry  in  his  first  year  sent  _ 

,  .  ,  .  Oct.  1399. 

a  message  to  the  convocation,  that  it  was 

his  intention  “  to  maintain  all  the  liberties  of  the  church, 
and  to  destroy  heresies,  errors,  and  heretics  to  the  utmost 
of  his  power  and  in  the  following  year,  after  a  repre¬ 
sentation  by  the  clergy  to  parliament  as  to  the  necessity 

of  checking  the  growth,  of  heresy,  was 

11  ^  7  •  7  7  a.d.  1 400*1  • 

passed  the  statute  De  nceretico  comburendo .z 

By  this  it  was  enacted  that  any  one  whom  an  ecclesias¬ 
tical  court  should  have  declared  to  be  guilty,  or  strongly 
suspected,  of  heresy,  should,  on  being  made  over  to  the 
sheriff  with  a  certificate  to  that  effect,  be  publicly  burnt.8. 


u  Wilk.  iii.  229.  x  Collier,  iii.  234-7. 
y  Wilk.  iii.  239. 

*  2  Hen.  IV.  c.  15.  The  prayer  was, 
that  when  persons  had  been  convicted, 
the  king’s  officers  should  receive  them, 
“  et  ulterius  agant  quod  eis  incumbit 
in  ea  parte  ;  ”  but  the  answer  is  more 
distinct: — “  Easdem  coram  populo  in 
eminenti  loco  comburi  faciant.”  The 
convocation  had  decreed  that  “cum 


clericis  laici  oppido  sint  infesti  ”  [a 
reminiscence  of  Boniface  VIII.];  and 
whereas  it  was  said  that  parliament 
intended,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Lol¬ 
lards,  to  make  new  laws,  adverse  to 
the  clergy  and  to  the  liberties  of  the 
church,  the  bishops  should  be  desired 
strenuously  to  withstand  such  attempts. 
Wilk.  iii.  242. 

*  Walsingh.  ii.  247 ;  Pauli,  v.  51-2 


298 


LOLLARDISM  UNDER 


Book  VI 1 1. 


The  first  victim  of  this  statute  is  supposed  to  have 
been  William  Sautre,  priest  of  St.  Osyth’s,  in  London, 
who  had  before  been  convicted  in  the  diocese  of  Norwich, 
and  suffered  as  a  relapsed  heretic  in  1401,  chiefly  for  the 
denial  of  transubstantiation.b  When  the  parliament  in 
1410  asked  for  a  mitigation  of  the  statute,  the  king 
answered  that  it  ought  to  be  made  more  severe.0  There 
is  a  succession  of  measures  intended  for  the  repression  of 
the  Lollards.  In  1407  an  ordinance  was  passed  which 
condemns  their  opinions  as  to  church  property,  and 
seems  to  connect  the  party  with  those  who  used  the 
name  of  the  deposed  king  as  if  he  were  still  alive.d  In 
the  following  year  a  synod  assembled  in  London,  under 

a  d  140S  ^ie  Presidency  t1ne  archbishop,  decreed  that 
Wyclifs  books  should  not  be  read,  unless 
allowed  by  one  of  the  universities,  and  that  no  English 
versions  of  the  Scriptures  should  be  made,  because  ot 
the  difficulty  of  securing  a  uniform  sense,  “as  the  blessed 
Jerome  himself,  although  he  had  been  inspired,  avers  that 


That  this  statute  was  probably  not 
passed  in  regular  form,  see  Hallam, 
M.  A.  ii.  22i ;  on  the  other  side,  Lin- 
gard,  iii.  472.  Fitzherbert  says  that  it 
was  a  rule  of  common  law  that  heretics 
should  be  burnt ;  and  some  think  that 
Sautre  suffered  before  the  enactment 
of  the  statute.  (See  Shirley,  69 ;  cf. 
Arnold,  Introd.  to  Wyclif,  I.  x.-xii.) 
It  is  remarked  that  England  was  the 
only  country  where  such  a  statute  was 
needed,  as  elsewhere  the  secular  powers 
at  once  carried  out  the  sentence. 
Wordsw.  Eccl.  Biog.  i.  22  ;  Milman, 
v.  524 ;  who  refer  to  Blackstone  and 
Hallam. 

b  Fox,  iii.  222-9;  Wilk.  iii.  255.  The 
writ  for  burning  (Rym.  viii.  178),  dated 
Feb.  26,  1401,  says  that  the  punish¬ 
ment  is  “juxca  legem  divinam,  huma- 
nam,  canonica  instituta,  et  in  hac  parte 
consuetudinarie.”  As  one  John  New¬ 
ton  w’as  rector  of  St.  Osyth’s  from  1396 


to  1427,  Sautre  was  probably  a  chantry- 
priest.  Hook,  iv.  502. 
c  Walsingh.  ii.  283. 
d  Lingard,  iii.  472,  from  Rot.  Pari, 
iii.  583.  “  This,  says  Dr.  Lingard, 

“was  only  a  temporary  ordinance,  to 
last  till  the  next  parliament.”  That 
Richard  made  his  escape  from  Ponte¬ 
fract,  and  lived  in  Scotland,  has  been 
maintained  not  only  by  Mr.  Tytler 
(Hist.  Scotl.  iii.  279,  seqq.),  but  by 
Mr.  Williams,  editor  of  the  ‘Chronique 
de  la  Trahison  et  Mort  de  Richard  II.’ 
for  the  English  Historical  Society. 
Against  this,  see  Amyot,  in  Archaeo- 
logia,  vols.  xxiii.,  xxv.  ;  Mackintosh, 
i.  381  ;  Brougham,  n.  xxii.  Walsing- 
ham  reports  Sir  John  Oldcastle  as  hav¬ 
ing  said,  when  brought  before  parlia¬ 
ment  in  1417,  “se  non  habere  judicem 
inter  eos,  vivente  ligeo  domino  suo  in 
regno  Scotiae,  rege  Ricardo.”  (ii.  328.) 
But  this  proves  nothing  more  than  the 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1401-13.  THE  HOUSE  OF  LANCASTER.  299 

herein  he  had  often  erred.” e  It  was  ordered  that  at 
Oxford  the  authorities  should  inquire,  once  a  month  or 
oftener,  whether  Wyclif’s  opinions  were  held  by  any 
members  of  the  university  ; f  and  in  1412  two  hundred 
and  sixty-seven  propositions  from  his  works  were  con¬ 
demned  there,  “as  all  guilty  of  fire.”g  The  pope,  John 
XXIII.,  at  Arundel’s  request,  confirmed  this  sentence; 
but  he  rejected  the  archbishop’s  proposal  that  Wyclit’s 
bones  should  be  dug  up  and  burnt.11 

During  the  reign  of  Henry  IV.  the  statutes  against 
Lollardism  were  but  partially  enforced  ;  but  Henry  V. 
(whatever  may  have  been  his  conduct  in  those  earlier 
years,  as  to  which  we  have  received  an  impression  too 
strong  to  be  effaced  by  any  historical  evidence)  showed 
himself,  when  king,  strictly  religious  according  to  the 
ideas  of  the  time,  and  conscientious,  even  to  bigotry,  in 
the  desire  to  signalize  his  orthodoxy  and  to  suppress  such 
opinions  as  bore  the  note  of  heresy.1  Under  the  influence 
of  his  Carmelite  confessor,  Thomas  Netter,  one  of  the 
bitterest  controversial  opponents  of  Wyclifism,k  the  laws 
were  now  rigorously  executed.  The  victims  were  of  all 


inclination  of  the  Lollards  to  believe 
such  stories,  and  to  make  use  of 
Richard’s  name  against  the  house  of 
Lancaster. 

*  Wilkins,  iii.  314,  cc.  6-7. 
f  lb.  c.  11.  Cf.  Arundel,  ib.  322-3, 
329- 

s  “  Omnes  reas  igne.”  Ib.  339-49  ; 
Lewis,  105  ;  Collier,  iii.  290. 

h  Wilk.  iii.  351 ;  Collier,  iii.  291  ; 
Hook,  iv.  494-8.  Among  proposals  by 
the  university  of  Oxford,  1414,  one  is. 
That  whereas  incompetent  and  inept 
translations  of  many  books  had  misled 
simple  and  ignorant  persons  \_simplices 
idiotas ],  books  and  tracts  Englished 
since  the  beginning  of  the  schism 
should  be  confiscated  until  good  trans¬ 
lations  should  be  made.  C.  44,  Wilk. 
iii.  365. 


1  Gesta  Henr.  V.  90-2  ;  2  Henr.  V. 
stat.  i.  c.  7  ;  Proclamations  in  Rym. 
ix.  46,  120,  129,  etc.  See  Pauli,  v.  80, 
89,  175-8. 

k  Netter  (known  as  Thomas  Walden- 
sis)  was  author  of  the  ‘  Doctrinale  An- 
tiquitatum  Fidei  Catholicse  Ecclesise,' 
a  work  which  fills  three  huge  folio 
volumes,  and,  having  been  first  pub¬ 
lished  as  an  antidote  to  Luther’s  teach¬ 
ing  (Paris,  1521-32),  has  since  gone 
•  through  three  editions,  the  last  being 
by  Blanciotti,  Venice,  1757-9;  also, 
perhaps,  of  the  '  Fasciculi  Zizaniorum.’ 
See  Dr.  Shirley’s  Preface,  70,  76-7, 
where  it  is  supposed  that  Netter  used 
materials  collected  by  Stephen  Pa- 
tryngton.  For  an  account  of  Netter 
and  the  ‘  Doctrinale,’  see  Lechler,  ii. 

327-471- 


3°° 


SIR  JOHN  OLDCASTLE. 


Book  VIII. 


classes;1  but  the  most  conspicuous  for  character  and  for 
rank  was  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  who,  in  right  of  his  wife,  sat 
in  parliament  as  Lord  Cobham.m  Oldcastle,  who  seems 
to  have  been  a  man  of  somewhat  violent  and  impetuous 
character,  had  been  highly  distinguished  in  the  French 
wars,  and  had  been  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  Henry 
in  his  earlier  days.”  Having  taken  up  the  opinions 
of  Wyclif  with  enthusiastic  zeal,  he  endeavoured,  by 
encouraging  itinerant  preachers  and  otherwise,  to  spread 
these  doctrines  among  the  people  ;  and  it  was  feared  that 
his  military  skill  and  renown  might  make  him  dangerous 
as  the  leader  of  a  fanatical  and  disaffected  party.0  The 
king  himself  undertook  to  argue  with  him  ;  but  Cobham, 
knowing  his  ground  better,  withstood  the  royal  argu- 
Sept.  23— Oct.  nrents.p  After  having  been  called  in  question 
IO>  i4I3*  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  for  his 
opinions  (as  to  which  he  appears,  while  denying  transub- 
stantiation,  to  have  consistently  maintained  that  the  very 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  contained  under  the  form 
of  the  eucharistic  elements  3),  he  was  excommunicated. 
He  then  made  his  escape  from  London,  and  for  some 
years  lived  obscurely  in  Wales;  but  he  afterwards  re¬ 
appeared,  and,  as  he  was  supposed  to  be  concerned  in 


1  Mr.  Tyler,  in  his  Life  of  Henry 
V.  (ii.  344,  seqq.),  vindicates  him,  as  to 
the  death  of  Badby,  from  the  exaggera¬ 
tions  of  Fox  and  Milner. 

m  See  Lord  Brougham,  House  of 
Lancaster,  Append,  xxvi, 
n  Walsingh.  ii.  291  ;  Fascic.  434  ; 
Pauli,  v.  82.  In  an  old  play  founded 
on  the  history  of  Henry  V.,  Sir  John 
Oldcastle  appears  as  one  of  the  king’s 
companions  ;  and  Shakespeare  origin¬ 
ally  gave  the  same  name  to  the  charac¬ 
ter  whom  we  know  as  Falstaff ;  for 
W'hich  he  apologises  in  the  Epilogue 
of  Henry  IV.,  Pt.  ii.  : — “  Oldcastle 
died  a  martyr,  and  this  is  not  the  man.” 
(See  Dyce’s  Shakespeare,  2nd  ed.,  iv. 


204-5  >  Fuller,  ii.  417.)  But  it  is  ab¬ 
surd,  as  well  as  unfair,  in  Dr.  Lingard 
(iii.  477-8)  to  attach  the  characteristics 
of  Falstaff  to  the  real  Oldcastle.  (See 
Pauli,  v.  86.)  There  was  a  serious  play 
on  the  story  of  Sir  John  Oldcastle. 
printed  in  1600,  and  wrongly  ascribed 
to  Shakespeare.  See  Knight’s  ‘  Pic¬ 
torial  Shakspere,’  vii.  209. 

0  Fascic.  434  ;  Capgrave,  Chron. 
304.  See  Tyler,  ii.  285;  Milm.  v. 
529,  seqq. 

p  Gesta  Henr.  V.  p.  2  ;  Fascic.  435. 

1  E.g.,  Fox,  iii.  325,  327,  330-1,  338, 
344,  346 ;  Fascic.  437-44 ;  Wilk.  iii. 
352,  357- 


Chap.  VI.  a.d.  1413-17. 


LOLLARDISM. 


3QI 


revolutionary  designs,  was  arrested,  and  was  brought  to 
the  bar  of  the  house  of  lords.  The  sentence  which  had 
before  been  pronounced  against  him  on  a  mixed  charge 
of  heresy  and  treason  was  read  over  in  his  hearing,  and, 
as  he  made  no  defence,  he  was  forthwith,  in  pursuance 
of  that  sentence,  hanged  and  burnt  in  Smithfield  on  the 
18th  of  December  1417. r 

Wyclifism  disappears  from  view  in  England,  although 
it  continued  to  lurk  as  the  creed  of  illiterate  persons 
among  the  laity  ;s  and  when  the  day  of  reformation 
arrived,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  agents  in  the  great 
change  were  influenced  by  the  movement  of  an  earlier 
time.4  But  meanwhile,  in  a  distant  country,  opinions 
closely  resembling  those  of  Wyclif  produced  effects  of 
wide  and  lasting  importance. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

BOHEMIA. 

The  reforming  tendencies  which  appeared  in  Bohemia 
towards  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century  have  been 


r  Walsingh.  ii.  297-8,  306,  326-8  ; 
Fox,  iii.  367-9  ;  Capgrave,  de  Illustri- 
bus  Henricis,  113,  122  ;  Collier,  iii. 
324  ;  Pauli,  iv.  148.  Henry  was  then 
warring  in  France.  (Tyler,  ii.  300.) 
For  Oldcastle’s  innocence  of  treason, 
see  Lord  Brougham’s  Appendix,  xxviii. 

8  See  Prof.  Churchill  Babington’s 
Preface  to  Pecock’s  *  Repressor ' 
(Chron.  and  Mem.),  p.  xxvii.,  and  the 
references  to  “Lollards”  in  his  index; 
also  Lechler,  in  Herzog,  viii.  463.  The 
doctrines  of  Wyclif  were  carried  into 
Scotland  by  a  priest  named  James 
Resby,  who  was  brought  before  an 


assembly  of  the  clergy,  and  was  burnt 
in  1407.  It  would  seem  that  his  tracts 
were  preserved  among  the  people,  and 
had  much  influence  (Tytler,  iii.  141-2  ; 
Grub,  i.  365-6).  Rinaldi  quotes  from 
Waldensis  an  account  of  some  persons 
in  Scotland  who  were  called  Lollards 
(1420.  21-2).  They  denied  the  necessity 
of  baptism  for  the  children  of  believing 
parents.  A  law  against  Lollardy  was 
passed  by  the  Scottish  parliament  in 
1424.  Acts  of  Pari,  of  Scotland,  ii.  7  ; 
Tytler,  iii.  198. 

1  As  to  the  slighting  opinions  which 
Luther  and  Melancthon  pronounced  on 


3°2 


BOHEMIA. 


Book  VIII. 


traced  to  the  ancient  connexion  of  that  country  with  the 
Greek  church, a  from  which  it  is  assumed  that  peculiar 
usages — such  as  the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  the  use  of  the 
vernacular  tongue  in  the  offices  of  the  church,  and  the 
administration  of  the  eucharistic  cup  to  the  laity — had 
been  continued  through  the  intermediate  ages.b  But  this 
theory,  which  was  unknown  to  the  Bohemian  reformers 
of  the  time  with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  appears 
to  be  wholly  unsupported  by  historical  fact.0  Nor, 
although  some  Waldenses  had  made  their  way  into  the 
country, d  does  it  appear  that  the  reforming  movement 
which  we  are  about  to  notice  derived  any  impulse  from 
that  party. 

The  first  person  who  became  conspicuous  as  a  teacher 
of  reformation  in  Bohemia  was  not  a  native  of  the  country, 
but  an  Austrian — Conrad  of  \Valdhausen,e  canon  of  the 
cathedral  of  Prague,  and  pastor  of  a  parish  near  the  city. 
Conrad  appears  to  have  adhered  in  all  respects  to  the 
doctrine  which  was  considered  orthodox  in  his  time,  and 
his  burning  zeal  was  directed  against  practical  corruptions 
of  religion.  He  denounced,  with  indignant  eloquence, 
the  mechanical  character  of  the  usual  devotions ;  the 
abuses  of  indulgences  and  relics  ;  the  practice  oi  simony 
in  all  forms,  among  which  he  included  the  performance 
of  charitable  duties  for  money,  such  as  that  of  tending 
the  sick;f  and  on  this  ground,  among  others,  he  censured 


Wyclif,  and  the  injustice  thereby  done 
to  him,  see  Lechler,  in  Herzog,  xviii. 
103. 

a  See  vol.  iii.  p.  464. 
b  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  564. 
c  Gies.l.  II.  iii.  333  ;  Palacky,  III. 
i-  157- 

d  They  are  said  to  have  murdered  a 
papal  legate  and  inquisitor  at  Prague  in 
1341.  (Schrockh,  xxxiv.  565.)  John, 
archbishop  of  Prague,  complains  in 
1381  that  heresies  are  rife  in  Bohemia, 
“  et  signanter  secta  Sarraboytarum  et 


illorum  rusticorum  Valdensium  dama- 
torum.”  (Mansi,  xxvi.  692.)  John  of 
Trittenheim  groundlessly  connects  the 
Bohemian  reformers  with  Beghardsand 
with  the  supposed  Walter  Lollard  (see 
above,  p.  295).  Chron.  Hirsaug.  1315, 
1322. 

0  The  surname  of  Stiekna  was  for¬ 
merly,  but  wrongly,  given  to  Conrad, 
by  confusion  with  another  person.  Pa¬ 
lacky,  III.  i.  161  ;  Neand.  ix.  263. 

f  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  566;  Neand.  ix. 
268,  272. 


Chap.  VII.  a. d.  1350-69.  CONRAD  OF  WALDHAUSEN.  303 

the  mendicant  friars.  But  lie  also  assailed  the  principle 
of  their  system  altogether,  offering  sixty  groats  to  anyone 
who  would  prove  from  Scripture  that  the  Saviour  gave  his 
sanction  to  the  mendicant  life ;  and  he  strongly  opposed 
the  practice  of  devoting  young  persons— in  some  cases 
even  children  yet  unborn — to  the  cloister,  without  allow¬ 
ing  them  the  power  of  choice.g  He  required  usurers  to 
disgorge  the  gains  which  they  had  unjustly  acquired  ; 
whereas  the  friars  used  to  quiet  the  consciences  of  such 
persons  by  teaching  them  that  the  iniquities  of  usury 
might  be  sanctified  by  bounty  to  the  church.11  Yet  Con¬ 
rad,  although  he  strenuously  opposed  the  corruptions  of 
monasticism,  set  a  high  value  on  the  idea  of  the  monastic 
life.1  His  power  as  a  preacher  is  said  to  have  been  very 
extraordinary;  sometimes  he  found  himself  obliged  to 
deliver  his  sermons  in  market-places,  because  no  church 
was  large  enough  to  contain  the  multitude  of  hearers. 
He  carried  away  from  the  mendicants  all  but  a  handful 
of  “beguines”;  even  Jews  crowded  to  listen  to  him,  and 
he  discountenanced  those  who  would  have  kept  them 
off.k  Conrad  was  favoured  by  the  emperor  Charles  ;  and, 
although  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  combined 
against  him,  and  in  1364  exhibited  twenty-nine  articles 
of  accusation  to  the  archbishop  of  Prague,  he  continued 
his  course  without  any  serious  molestation  until  his  death 
in  1369.1 

Contemporary  with  Conrad  of  Wa.ldhausen  was 
Militz,m  a  native  of  Kremsier,  in  Moravia.  Militz  had 
attained  the  dignity  of  archdeacon  of  Prague,  and,  in 
addition  to  other  benefices,  possessed  some  landed 
property;  he  stood  high  in  the  favour  of  Charles  IV., 

8  Neand.  ix.  269.  h  lb.  272.  m  This  (=carissimus)  was  his  bap- 

*  lb.  270.  tismal  name,  although  some  have 

k  lb.  264,  267,  272-4.  mistaken  it  for  a  surname,  and  have 

1  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  567;  Neand.  ix.  prefixed  John  to  it.  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
275-6.  324 ;  Herzog,  art.  Militz. 


304  M1LITZ  OF  KREMSIER.  Book  VIII. 

and  was  greatly  respected  in  his  ecclesiastical  character. 
But  the  desire  after  a  stricter  religious  life  arose  within 
him,  and,  resigning  all  the  advantages  of  his  position,  he 
withdrew  to  the  poverty  and  obscurity  of  a  parish  priest’s 
life  in  a  little  town  or  village.11  After  a  time  he  reap¬ 
peared  at  Prague,  and,  unlike  Conrad  of  Waldhausen, 
who  had  used  only  the  German  language,  he  preached 
in  Latin  to  the  learned,  and  in  the  vernacular  to  the 
multitude.  At  first,  his  Bohemian  sermons  had  little 
effect  on  account  of  his  somewhat  foreign  pronuncia¬ 
tion  ; 0  but  this  difficulty  was  gradually  overcome,  and 
Militz  was  heard  four  or  five  times  a  day  by  enthusiastic 
audiences.  Usurers  were  persuaded  by  his  eloquence  to 
give  up  their  gains,  and  women  to  renounce  the  vanities 
of  dress  ;  and  so  powerful  was  he  in  exhorting  prosti¬ 
tutes  to  forsake  a  life  of  sin,  that  under  his  teaching  a 
part  of  the  city  which  had  been  known  as  Little  Venice 
acquired  the  title  of  Little  Jerusalem.11  Like  Conrad, 
Militz  attacked  the  mendicant  system ;  but,  whereas 
Conrad  had  confined  himself  to  practical  subjects,  Militz 
plunged  into  apocalyptic  speculations.  Seeing  in  the 
corruption  of  the  church  a  proof  that  antichrist  was 
already  come,  he  wrote  a  tract  in  which  he  fixed  the  end 
of  the  world  between  1365  and  1367  ;  he  even  told 
Charles  IV.  to  his  face  that  he  was  the  great  antichrist, 
yet  he  did  not  by  this  forfeit  the  emperor’s  regards  In 
1 35 7  Militz  felt  an  irresistible  impulse  to  set  forth  his 
opinions  to  Urban  V.,  who  was  then  about  to  remove 
to  Rome.  He  arrived  there  before  the  pope,  and  by 
announcing  his  intention  of  discoursing  on  the  coming 
of  antichrist,  provoked  an  imprisonment  in  the  convent 
of  Ara  Coeli ;  but  he  was  able  to  justify  his  orthodoxy 

n  Palacky,  III.  i.  164;  Neand.  ix.  sermonis.”  Palacky,  III.  i.  165. 

250-1.  p  Neand.  ix.  252-4. 

0  “Propter  incongruentiam  vulgaris  1  lb.  256;  Palacky,  III.  i.  165-7. 


Chap.  VII.  a.d.  1350-88.  MATTHIAS  OF  JANOW. 


305 


before  Urban,  and  was  allowed  to  return  to  Prague/ 
From  this  time  he  abandoned  apocalyptic  subjects,  but 
was  unwearied  in  his  labours  as  a  preacher ;  and  he  es¬ 
tablished  a  school  for  preachers,  at  which  200  or  300 
students  were  trained  under  one  roof,  but  without  any 
vow  or  monastic  rule.s  Some  years  later,  twelve  charges 
against  him  were  brought  before  Gregory  XI., — among 
other  things,  that  he  disparaged  the  clergy  from  the  pope 
downwards ;  that  he  denounced  their  possession  of 
property ;  that  he  denied  the  force  of  excommunication  ; 
and  that  he  insisted  on  daily  communion/  In  order  to 
meet  these  charges,  Militz  repaired  to  Avignon,  but  while 
his  case  was  pending  he  died  there  in  1374/ 

Among  the  pupils  of  Militz  was  Matthias  of  Janow,  a 
young  man  of  knightly  family,  who  afterwards  studied 
for  six  years  at  Paris,  and  thence  was  styled  “  Magister 
Parisiensis.  ”  In  1381  Matthias  became  a  canon  of 
Prague,  and  he  was  confessor  to  the  emperor  Charles/ 
The  influence  of  Matthias,  unlike  that  of  Conrad  and 
of  Militz,  was  exerted  chiefly  by  means  of  his  writings. 
One  of  these — a  tract,  “  Of  the  Abomination  of  Desola¬ 
tion,  ”  mainly  directed  against  the  mendicant  friars — has 
been  sometimes  ascribed  to  Hus,  and  sometimes  to 
Wyclif/  His  chief  work,  “Of  the  Rules  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments”  (which  is  described  as  an  inquiry  into 
the  characters  of  real  and  false  Christianity z),  has  never 
been  printed  at  full  length/  Matthias  went  considerably 
beyond  those  practical  measures  of  reform  with  which 


r  Neand.  ix.  256-61  ;  Palacky,  III. 
i.  167-8. 

8  lb.  169. 

1  lb.  171. 

u  lb.  172  ;  Neand.  ix.  262-3.  Dr. 
Schmidt  supposes  Militz  to  have  been 
connected  with  Nicolas  of  Basel  and 
the  “  Friends  of  God  ”  (see  below,  c. 
x.,  sect.  v.).  *  Nic.  v.  Basel,’  31. 

x  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  572 ;  Palacky, 

VOL.  VII. 


III.  i.  173. 

y  See  Neand.  ix.  278,  seqq.  It  is 
printed  among  Hus’s  works,  i.  376, 
seqq. 

z  Pressel,  in  Herzog,  art.  Janow. 

a  See  Neand.  ix.  280  ;  Palacky,  III. 
176  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  326.  No  one 
copy  is  entire,  but  the  book  could  be 
completed  from  the  various  existing 
copies. 


20 


3°6 


MATTHIAS  OF  JANOW. 


Book  VIII. 


his  predecessors  had  contented  themselves ;  indeed  it 
may  be  said  that  the  later  reformer  Hus  rather  fell  short 
of  him  in  this  respect  than  exceeded  him.b  Matthias 
professed  to  regard  Holy  Scripture  as  the  only  source 
of  religious  knowledge,  and  declared  himself  forcibly 
against  human  inventions  and  precepts  in  religion.0  He 
was  strongly  opposed  to  the  encroachments  of  the 
papacy  on  the  church  ;  he  regarded  the  pope  rather  as 
antichrist  than  as  Christ’s  vicar;  and  he  describes  anti¬ 
christ  (whom  he  declares  to  have  come  long  ago),  in 
terms  which  seem  to  point  at  the  degenerate  and  worldly 
hierarchy.11  He  denounced  the  clergy  in  general  for  the 
vices  which  he  imputed  to  them,  and  appears  to  have 
reprobated  the  greatness  of  the  distinction  which  was 
commonly  made  between  the  clergy  and  the  laity.e 
Matthias  wras  especially  zealous  for  frequent  communion 
of  the  lay  people.  He  denied  the  sufficiency  of  wffiat 
w’as  called  spiritual  communion  :  “  If  we  were  angels,” 
he  said,  “  it  might  possibly  be  enough  ;  but  for  our  mixed 
nature  of  body  and  soul  an  actual  reception  of  the 
sacrament  is  necessary  ” ;  and  this  he  deduced  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  incarnation  itself.1  Those  (he  said)  who 
receive  but  once  a  year  come  to  the  sacrament  in  a  spirit 
of  bondage,  and  cannot  know  the  true  Christian  liberty.8 
It  wras  supposed  in  later  times  that  Matthias  had  advo¬ 
cated  the  administration  of  the  eucharistic  cup  to  the 
laity ;  but  this  appears  to  be  a  mistake.11  For  some  of 
the  opinions  imputed  to  him — among  other  things,  for 
insisting  on  daily  communion  of  the  laity — he  was 
condemned  by  a  synod  held  at  Prague  in  1388,  and, 
having  submitted  to  make  a  retractation,  wras  suspended 
for  half  a  year  from  ministering  beyond  his  own  parish 

b  Neand.  ix.  276.  Ib.  314,  331.  k  lb.  315. 

c  Ib.  294-5  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  331.  Giesel.  II.  iii.  332-3  ;  Lechler,  ii 

d  Neand.  ix.  281,  291  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  130.  See,  however,  Palacky,  III.  ii 
326-7.  c  Neand.  ix.  281.  180. 


Chap.  VII.  a.d.  1381-94.  ENGLAND  AND  BOHEMIA. 


3°7 


church.1  But  he  appears  to  have  continued  his  teaching 
with  little  change,  and  to  have  been  suffered  to  remain 
unmolested  until  his  death  in  1394. k 

As  to  the  orthodoxy  of  these  men  (who,  although  not 
the  only  Bohemian  reformers  of  their  time,1  were  the 
most  distinguished  among  them)  there  have  been  various 
opinions  within  the  Roman  church,  as  the  Bohemian 
writers  generally  maintain  that  they  were  sound  in  faith, 
and  in  favour  of  this  view  (which  is  commonly  rejected 
by  writers  of  other  nations)  are  able  to  point  to  the 
fact  that  they  all  lived  and  died  within  the  communion  ol 
Rome.m 

Thus  far  the  reforming  movement  in  Bohemia  had  been 
wholly  independent  of  any  English  influence.  Indeed 
no  country  of  Europe  might  seem  so  unlikely  to  feel  such 
influence  as  Bohemia — far  removed  as  it  is  on  all  sides 
from  any  communication  with  our  island  by  sea,  and  with 
a  population  wholly  alien  in  descent  and  in  language  from 
any  of  the  tribes  which  have  contributed  to  form  our 
nation.  Yet  by  the  accession  of  Charles  of  Luxemburg 
to  the  throne  of  Bohemia,  and  by  the  marriage  of  his 
daughter  Anne  with  Richard  of  England,  the  two  countries 
were  brought  into  a  special  connexion.  The  ^  ^ 
princess,  whose  pious  exercises  and  study  of 
the  Scriptures  were  afterwards  commemorated  in  a  funeral 
sermon  by  archbishop  Arundel,11  had  been  so  far  affected 
by  the  reforming  movements  of  her  own  land  (where  each 
of  the  three  men  who  have  been  mentioned  above  had 
enjoyed  the  favour  of  her  father),  that  she  brought  with 
her  to  England  versions  of  the  Gospels  in  the  German  0 

5  Documenta  Mag.  Jo.  Hus  Vitam  132.  m  See  Giesel.  II.  iii.  332. 

etc.  illustrantia,  ed.  Palacky,  Prague,  n  See  Fox,  iii.  222. 

1869,  p.  699.  (This  will  be  cited  as  0  Wycl.  quoted  by  Hus,  Opera,  i. 

‘  Docum the  editor’s  name  being  108.  Dean  Mihnan  supposes  “Teu- 

reserved  to  denote  his  History  of  Bo-  tonicam”  to  mean  English,  (v.  520.) 

hernia.)  k  Neand.  ix.  336.  But  (besides  that  such  a  confusion  is 

1  Palacky,  III.  ii.  182;  Lechler,  i.  unlikely)  a  book  brought  from  the  court 


Cook  VIII 


3°8 


BOHEMIA. 


and  Bohemian  tongues  as  well  as  in  Latin  ;  and  when, 
after  her  death,  her  Bohemian  attendants 

A.  D.  1394.  .  .  .  .  ,  , 

returned  to  their  own  country,  it  would  seem 
that  they  carried  with  them  much  of  Wyclifs  doctrine. 
A  literary  intercourse  also  grew  up  between  the  countries. 
Young  Bohemians  studied  at  Oxford ;  young  Englishmen 
resorted  to  the  university  which  Charles  had  founded  in 
the  Bohemian  capital.  Wyclif  was  already  held  in  high 
honour  there  on  account  of  his  philosophical  and  physical 
works,  which  were  regarded  without  any  suspicion  on  ac¬ 
count  of  his  religious  teaching  ;P  thus  Hus  said  in  1411 
that  Wyclifs  writings  had  been  read  at  Prague  by  himself 
and  other  members  of  the  university  for  more  than  twenty 
years.q 

John  Hus,r  the  most  famous,  if  not  the  most  remark¬ 
able,  of  the  Bohemian  reformers,  was  born  in  a  humble 
condition  at  Hussinecz,  a  village  near  the  Bavarian 
frontier,  in  1369, s  the  year  of  Conrad  of  Waldhausen’s 
death.  His  education  was  completed  at  Prague,  where  it 
would  seem  that  he  was  influenced  by  the  teaching  ol 
Matthias  of  Janow;  and  among  the  writers  whom  he  most 
revered  were  St.  Augustine  and  Grosseteted  By  such 


of  the  German  king  of  Bohemia  was 
more  likely  to  be  German  than  English. 
And  see  Wharton,  in  Ussher,  xii.  352. 
Moreover,  in  the  passage  where  Hus 
quotes  Wyclif’s  testimony,  there  is 
throughout  an  opposition  between  the 
words  A  nglicus  and  Teutonic  us. 

P  Neand.  ix.  348. 

*  Replic.  contra  J.  Stokes,  Opera,  i. 
108.  “  Ipsa  propositio  vergit  in  confu- 

sionem  universitatis  nostra;  .  .  .  imo  in 
confusionem  universitatis  Oxoniensis, 
quae  universitas  ab  annis  trigin ta  habet 
et  legit  libros  ipsius  M.  Jo.  Wiclef. 
Egoque  et  membra  nostrae  universitatis 
habemus  et  legimus  illos  libros  ab  annis 
viginti  et  pluribus.”  Neander  (ix.  348) 
interprets  this  as  meaning  that  Wyclif 
had  been  read  thirty  years  at  Prague. 


But  “quae  universitas”  clearly  means 
Oxford.  Cf.  Hus,  1.  109*,  no. 

r  The  name  signifies  a  goose,  and  to 
this  we  find  frequent  allusions;  e.g., 
“  Et  haec  eadem  veritas  pro  uno  Ansere 
infirmo  et  debili  mukos  falcones  et 
aquilas  Pragam  mistt,”  etc.  (Ep.  17.) 
“  Oportet  quod  Auca  alas  moveat 
contra  alas  Vehemot,  et  contra  cau- 
dam,  qua;  semper  cooperit  abomina- 
tionem  bestia;  Antichristi.”  (Ep.  s6.) 
See,  too,  below,  the  quotation  from  a 
letter  written  by  John  Cardinal,  from 
Constance,  on  St.  Martin’s  eve,  1414. 
— (I  quote  Hus’s  Epistles,  and  those 
of  his  correspondents,  from  the  ‘  Docu- 
menta.’) 

s  Palacky,  III.  ii.  191. 

*  Neand.  ix.  340,  346. 


Chap.  VII.  a.d.  1369-1402.  JOHN  HUS. 


309 


studies  he  was  prepared  to  welcome  some  theological 
writings  of  Wyclif,  which  were  introduced  into  Bohemia 
in  1402.11  In  his  earlier  years  he  had  been  devoted  to 
the  prevailing  fashion  of  religion ;  at  the  jubilee  of  1393 
he  had  gone  through  all  the  prescribed  devotions  in  order 
to  obtain  the  indulgence,  and  had  given  his  last  four 
groschen  to  the  priest  who  heard  his  confession  ; x  and, 
although  he  had  already  adopted  Wyclif  s  philosophical 
principles/  he  was  at  first  so  little  attracted  by  his  theology 
that  he  advised  a  young  student,  who  had  shown  him  one 
of  the  books,  to  burn  it  or  to  throw  it  into  the  Moldau,  lest 
it  should  fall  into  hands  in  which  it  might  do  mischief.2 
But  he  soon  found  himself  fascinated;  Wyclif’s  books  gave 
him  new  light  as  to  the  constitution  of  the  church  and  as 
to  the  reforms  which  were  to  be  desired  in  it,  and  from 
them  his  whole  system  of  opinion  took  its  character. a  It 
would  seem,  however,  that  on  the  important  question  of 
transubstantiation  he  never  adopted  Wyclif s  doctrine,  but 
adhered  throughout  to  that  which  was  current  in  the 
church. b  When,  at  a  later  time,  the  testimonial  in  favour 


u  See  Hefele,  vii.  30,  quoting  a  book 
by  Palacky  against  Hofler,  for  the  date. 
x  Lechler,  ii.  136.  y  lb.  135. 

2  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  578. 
a  Giesel.  II.  iii.  393.  Hus  usually 
styles  Wyclif  “  the  master  of  deep 
thought.”  (Wratislaw,  in  ‘  Contemp. 
Rev.’  x.  535.)  For  his  zeal  in  circu¬ 
lating  Wyclif’s  works— giving  copies 
of  the  *  Trialogue’  to  the  Marquis  Jo- 
docus  and  to  other  persons  of  import¬ 
ance — see  Steph.  Dolan,  in  Pez,  IV.  ii. 
527.  At  Stockholm  are  five  philoso¬ 
phical  tracts  of  Wyclif,  transcribed  in 
Hus’s  own  hand.  The  only  known 
MSS.  of  the  Trialogue  are  in  the  Im¬ 
perial  Library  at  Vienna,  to  which  they 
are  supposed  to  have  found  their  way 
from  Bohemian  convents  suppressed 
by  Joseph  II.  (Lechler,  Prolegg. 
20-1.)  There  is  a  story  of  two  English¬ 
men  making  an  excitement  at  Prague 


by  exhibiting  two  pictures,  in  one  of 
which  was  represented  the  Saviour 
riding  into  Jerusalem  on  an  ass,  while 
the  other  displayed  the  magnificent 
cavalcade  of  the  pope  and  his  court 
(Theobald,  4 ;  see  Seyfr.  45,  seqq.) ;  but 
it  is  said  to  be  apocryphal.  Schrockh, 
xxxiv.  578-9. 

b  See  Neand.  ix.  350;  Palacky,  III. 
i.  198  ;  Lechler,  ii.  159,  163,  etc.  Hus 
himself,  in  exposing  the  inconstancy  of 
some  who  had  turned  against  him  (1413) 
says,  “  Scio  certitudinaliter  quod  Stan¬ 
islaus  tenuit  et  in  scripto  sententialiter 
scripsit  de  remanentia  panis ;  et  a  me 
qusesivit,  antequam  disturbiumincepit, 
si  vellem  idem  secum  tenere.  Et  postea 
juravit  et  abjuravit,”  etc.  Ep.  27. 
(Here  it  appears  that  Hus  had  not  pro¬ 
fessed  the  Wyclifite  doctrine.  Cf.  Ep. 
84,  p.  137  ;  De  Ccena  Domini,  Opera, 
i.  39 ;  Acta,  ib.  v. ;  Docum.  180-4.) 


310 


JOHN  HUS. 


Book  VIII. 


of  Wyclif,  under  the  seal  of  the  university  of  Oxford,  was 
produced  in  Bohemia  by  Peter  Payne  and  Nicolas  von 
Faulfisch,  Hus  eagerly  caught  at  its  supposed  authority  ; 
but  in  this  he  seems  to  have  been  a  dupe,  not  an  accom¬ 
plice,  of  the  forgery.0 

Hus  became  noted,  as  even  his  enemies  allow,  for  the 
purity  of  his  life,  his  ascetic  habits,  and  his  pleasing  man¬ 
ners^  In  1402  he  was  chosen  as  rector  of  the  university,® 
and  in  the  same  year  he  was  ordained  to  the  priesthood, 
and  was  appsinted  preacher  at  a  chapel  which  had  been 
founded  eleven  years  before  with  an  especial  view  to 
preaching  in  the  vernacular  tongue/  and  to  which  the 
founders — a  merchant  and  one  of  the  king’s  councillors — 
had  given  the  name  of  Bethlehem  (the  house  of  bread), 
on  account  of  the  spiritual  food  which  was  to  be  there 
distributed.5  Soon  after  this,  Hus  became  confessor  to  the 
queen,  Sophia,  and  acquired  much  influence  at  the  court  of 
Wenceslaus.h  He  was  also  appointed  synodal 
preacher,  and  in  this  character  had  the  privi¬ 
lege  of  frequently  addressing  the  clergy,  whom  he  rebuked 
with  a  vehemence  which  was  more  likely  to  enrage  than 
to  amend  them.1  He  charged  them  with  ambition  and 
ostentation,  with  luxury  k  and  avarice,  with  contempt  and 
oppression  of  the  poor1  and  with  subserviency  to  the 
rich  ;  with  vindictiveness,  which  is  said  to  have  given  rise 
to  a  proverb,  “  If  you  offend  a  clerk,  kill  him,  or  you  will 
never  have  peace  ;  ”  m  with  usury,  drunkenness,  indecent 


He  seems  to  admit  that  he  spoke  of 
bread  as  remaining  (for  which  he  quotes 
the  words  of  the  mass),  but  to  deny 
that  he  had  spoken  of  the  substance  of 
bread  as  remaining.  Doc.  182. 

c  Opera,  i.  109;  Docum.  232,  313; 
Neand.  ix.  351.  See  p.  294. 
d  Balbinus,  in  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  585. 
c  Lechler,  ii.  134.  The  office  was 
held  only  for  half  a  year.  Ib. 

1  Until  then  there  had  been  no  public 


preaching  in  the  vernacular.  (Seyfr. 
31.)  The  chapel  was  a  result  of  Militz’s 
preaching.  Neand.  ix.  340. 

8  Seyfried,  with  his  annotator,  how¬ 
ever,  says  that  the  name  was  given 
with  a  reference  to  the  holy  innocents 
30-1  ;  so  Hefele,  vii.  31. 
h  Giesel.  II.  iii.  394. 

1  Opera,  ii.  39. 
k  ii.  34,  etc. 

1  ii.  26. 


m  Ib. 


Chap.  VII.  a. d.  1402-5.  MIRACLE  OF  WILSNACK.  3II 

talking,  concubinage,  and  incontinency  ;n  with  gaming, 
betrayal  of  confession,  and  neglect  of  their  spiritual 
duties.  He  denounced  them  for  exacting  fees,0  for 
simoniacal  practices, p  for  holding  pluralities  : q  thus,  on 
one  occasion,  when  requesting  the  prayers  of  his  hearers 
for  a  deceased  ecclesiastic,  he  said,  “  Saving  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  God,  I  would  not  for  the  whole  world  choose 
to  die  with  so  many  and  valuable  benefices.”  r  It  was 
a  natural  result  of  such  preaching  that  Hus  raised  up 
against  himself  much  bitter  enmity  on  the  part  of  his 
brethren. 

In  1403,  Zbynko  of  Hasenburg  was  appointed  to  the  see 
of  Prague, s  which,  through  the  influence  of  king  John,  had 
been  detached  from  the  province  of  Mentz,  and  invested 
with  metropolitical  dignity  by  Clement  VI.1  The  new 
archbishop,  although  a  man  of  the  world,  so  that  he  took 
part  in  warlike  enterprises,  was  desirous  of  reforming  eccle¬ 
siastical  abuses ;  and  for  a  time  Hus  enjoyed  his  favour. 
It  was  by  Zbynko  that  the  office  of  synodal  preacher  was 
conferred ; u  and  he  even  invited  Hus  to  point  out  any 
defects  which  he  might  observe  in  his  administration. x 

The  archbishop’s  confidence  in  Hus  was  especially 
shown  by  appointing  him,  with  two  others,  to  investigate 
an  alleged  miracle,  which  had  raised  the  village  of  Wils- 
nack,  in  Brandenburg,  to  a  sudden  celebrity.  The  church 
there  had  been  burnt  by  a  robber  knight,  and  the  priest, 
in  groping  among  the  ruins,  had  found  in  a  cavity  of  the 
altar  three  consecrated  wafers  of  a  red  colour,  which  was 
supposed  to  be  produced  by  the  Saviour’s  blood. y  The 

n  ii.  26*,  29,  34,  etc.  “  Mulier  est  r  Doc.  154,  160;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  394-6* 
tanquam  pix  diaboli,  conversationem.  Among  other  things,  Hus  attacked  the 
maculans  sacerdotum.”  DeArg.  Clero,  mock  festivals  which  were  celebrated 
153.  in  churches.  Doc.  722. 

0  ii.  31  ;  and  as  to  funeral-dues,  ib.  s  Palacky,  III.  i.  195. 

39,  where  there  is  a  curious  descrip-  1  a.d.  1344.  Seep.  146. 

tion  of  the  disorders  usual  at  funerals.  u  Hefele,  vii.  32. 

P  ii.  30*,  36,  39.  x  Palacky,  III.  i.  216. 

ii.  27.  y  It  appears  from  the  scientific  in- 


31 2 


MIRACLE  OF  WILSNACK. 


Book  VIII. 


bishop  of  Havelberg  and  the  archbishop  of  Magdeburg, 
within  whose  jurisdiction  Wilsnack  was  situated,  took 
up  the  tale  ;  innumerable  cures  were  said  to  have  been 
wrought  by  the  miraculous  host ;  by  making  vows  to  it, 
prisoners  had  obtained  deliverance,  and  combatants  had 
gained  the  victory  in  duels  ; z  and  the  offerings  of  the  pil¬ 
grims  whom  it  attracted  were  enough  to  rebuild  the  whole 
village,  with  a  new  and  magnificent  church.  The  bohemian 
commissioners,  however,  detected  much  imposture  in  the 
alleged  cures  ;a  and  Hus  set  forth  a  tract,  “  On  the  glori¬ 
fied  Blood  of  Christ,”  in  which  he  combated  the  popular 
superstitions  as  to  relics  and  the  craving  after  miracles, b 
and  strongly  denounced  the  frauds  of  the  clergy,  who  for 
the  sake  of  money  deluded  the  credulous  people.0  In 
consequence  of  this  archbishop  Zbynko  forbade  all  resort 
from  his  own  diocese  to  Wilsnack, d  although 
140.,.  mjracujous  hosts  continued  to  attract 
pilgrims  until  they  were  burnt  by  a  reforming  preacher 
in  1552. e 


quiries  of  late  times  that  such  an  ap¬ 
pearance  may  naturally  be  produced 
by  the  presence  of  minute  insects. 
Neand.  ix.  342;  Edinb.  Rev.  exxv. 
408. 

*  Hus,  i.  160.  a  lb.  161.* 

b  E.g.,  “Nullus  verus  Christianus 
debet  signa  in  fide  sua  quasrere,  sed 
constanter  acquiescere  in  scriptura.” 
Cf.  158*,  161*. 

c  He  mentions  several  instances  of 
priests  who  were  detected  in  such  prac¬ 
tices  as  to  bloody  hosts,  etc.  A  monk 
of  Bologna  having  been  convicted  of 
an  imposture  of  this  kind,  “  in  ferrea 
catasta  in  porta  civitatis  diu  nutritus 
tanquam  avis,  in  hujusmodi  poenitentia 
vitam  suam  miserabiliter  terminavit.” 
(161*.)  For  another  case,  see  theChron. 
Epp.  Mindensium,  in  Leibnitz,  ii.  195. 

d  Opera,  i.  162* ;  Docum.  332  ;  Pa- 
lacky,  111.  i.  217. 

*  Schrbckh,  xxxiii.  441.  A  council 


at  Magdeburg,  in  1412,  put  questions 
on  the  subject  to  the  bishop  of  Havel¬ 
berg,  which  contain  curious  hints  of 
superstition  (Harzheim,  v.  35).  Her¬ 
man  Corner  says  about  1438 — “  Ubi 
quidem  Deus  ad  gloriam  sui  sacri 
corporis  plura  operatur  miracula  etiam 
hodiemo  die,  quibus  tamen  signis 
et  virtutibus  innumera  admiscentur 
frivola  et  minus  vera,  ob  cleri  illius 
pemiciosam  avaritiam.”  (Eccard.  ii. 
1443.)  Among  the  MSS.  in  the  Trea¬ 
sury  of  Canterbury  Cathedral  (C.  1303) 
is  an  account,  under  the  chapter  seal, 
of  a  cripple  from  Aberdeen,  who,  after 
having  been  healed  at  the  shrine  of 
St.  Thomas,  completed  his  vow  by 
going  on  “ad  sanguinem  sanctum  de 
Wylsnake,”  a.d.  1445.  (For  this  infor¬ 
mation  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  J.  B. 
Sheppard,  of  Canterbury.)  In  1447, 
Eugenius  IV.,  just  before  his  death, 
granted  indulgences  for  visiting  Wils- 


Chap.  VII.  a.d.  1405.  UNIVERSITY  OF  PRAGUE. 


313 


But  it  soon  became  evident  that  the  archbishop  and 
Hus  must  separate.  Hus’s  attacks  on  the 
clergy  were  renewed,  and  charges  of  Wyclifism  A  D'  I4°^’ 
were  formally  brought  against  him.f  The  archbishop 
complained  to  the  king ;  but  Wenceslaus  is  said  to  have 
replied,  “  So  long  as  Master  Hus  preached  against  us 
laymen,  you  rejoiced  at  it;  now  your  turn  is  come,  and 
you  must  be  content  to  bear  it.”  g 

In  the  university  also  Hus  became  involved  in  quarrels, 
The  founder,  Charles  IV.,  had  divided  it,  after  the  ex¬ 
ample  of  Paris,  into  four  nations— Bohemians,  Saxons, 
Bavarians,  and  Poles.11  But  as  two  of  these  were  Ger¬ 
man,  and  as  the  Polish  nation,  being  more  than  half 
composed  of  Silesians,  Pomeranians,  and  Prussians,  was 
under  German  influence,  the  Bohemians  found  that  in 
their  own  university  they  were  liable  to  be  overpowered  in 
the  election  of  officers,  and  in  all  sorts  of  other  questions, 
by  the  votes  of  foreigners.1  Hence  a  feeling  of  hostility 
grew  up,  and  extended  itself  even  to  matters  of  opinion, 
so  that,  as  the  Germans  were  nominalists,  the  Bohemians 
were  realists,  and  were  inclined  to  liberal  principles  in 
religion. k  Into  these  differences  Hus  eagerly  threw  him¬ 
self,  and  he  found  his  most  zealous  supporter  in  a  layman 
of  noble  family,  named  Jerome.1  Jerome  was  a  man  of 
ardent  and  impetuous  character,  restless  and  enterprising, 
gifted  with  a  copious  eloquence,  but  without  discretion 


nack.  (Rayn.  1447.  9.)  John  of  Capis¬ 
trano  preached  against  the  superstition 
(Giesel.  II.  iv.  334);  and  in  1451  Car¬ 
dinal  Cusa,  as  legate,  burnt  the  host 
which  he  found  in  the  church,  and 
substituted  one  consecrated  by  himself 
(Adrian,  de  Vet.  Bosco.  in  Mart.  Coll. 
Ampl.  iv.  1219 ;  C.  Zantfliet,  ib.  476). 
But  notwithstanding  all  opposition,  the 
pilgrimages  continued.  See  Giesel.  II. 
iv.  331-4.  f  Doc.  153. 

e  Giesel.  II.  iv.  398. 
h  Palacky,  II.  ii.  292. 


*  This  had  been  matter  of  complaint 
as  early  as  1384.  Schmid,  iv.  133  ; 
Palacky,  III.  i.  229. 

k  Neand.  ix.  352.  Andrew  of  Ratis- 
bon  speaks  of  the  difference  as  affect¬ 
ing  methods  of  study.  Pez.  IV.  iii. 
599- 

1  Jerome  has  had  the  surname  of 
Faulfisch  given  to  him,  but  by  a  confu¬ 
sion  with  another  person,  Nicolas  v. 
Faulfisch.  (Palacky,  III.  i.  192-3.) 
He  belonged  to  the  lower  class  of 
nobles. 


3M 


wyclif's  opinions 


Book  VIII. 


to  guide  it.  He  had  travelled  much — to  England,  to 
Russia,  to  Jerusalem — sometimes  affecting  the  character 
of  a  philosopher  and  theologian,  sometimes  that  of  a 
knight  and  man  of  the  world,  and  in  many  places  meet¬ 
ing  with  strange  adventures ;  he  professed  to  have  gradu¬ 
ated  as  a  master  of  arts  at  Prague,  Heidelberg,  Cologne, 
and  Paris.111  He  himself  states  that,  when  in  England,  he 
was  induced  by  the  celebrity  of  Wyclifs  name  to  make 
copies  of  the  Dialogue  and  of  the  Trialogue  ; n  and  he  was 
zealous  for  the  English  reformer’s  doctrines. 

It  was  a  law  of  the  Bohemian  university  that,  while 
doctors  and  masters  were  at  liberty  to  lecture  without 
restraint,  bachelors  were  required  to  use  as  texts  the 
lectures  of  some  reputed  teacher  of  Prague,  Oxford,  or 
Paris ;  and  in  this  manner  Wyclif  s  writings  came  to  be 
much  employed  and  known  there.0  But  this  naturally 
excited  opposition,  and  in  T403  forty-five  propositions 
ascribed  to  Wyclif— partly  derived  from  the  council  of  the 
earthquake,  and  partly  a  new  selection — were  condemned 
by  the  nations  which  predominated  in  the  university. p 
Hus  declined  to  join  unreservedly  in  this  condemnation  ; 
he  called  in  question  the  genuineness  of  the  proposi¬ 
tions,  and  declared  that,  although  no  devoted  follower  of 
Wyclif,  he  believed  the  Englishman’s  writings  to  contain 


m  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  103,  635,  680, 
seqq.  ;  Lenf.  Cone,  de  Pise,  ii.  50 ; 
Neand.  ix.  537-40.  See  a  letter  of 
Albert,  bishop  of  Cracow,  in  Doc.  506. 
Theodoric  of  Niem  describes  Jerome 
as  “  magister  in  artibus  sed  non  in 
sacris  ordinibus  statutus,  magnus  et 
crassus,  satis  eloquens,  sed  imprudens.” 
(V.  d.  Hardt.  ii.  449.)  Andrew  of  Ra- 
tisbon  says,  “  Scelestus  quidam  laicus 
sed  tamen  magister  artium.”  (Pez,  IV. 
iii.  599.)  At  Oxford  he  had  been  in 
some  trouble  on  a  suspicion  of  heresy, 
as  appears  from  a  remonstrance  of  the 
university  of  Prague  (Doc.  336).  There 
was  in  the  same  age  another  Jerome  of 


Prague,  a  monk  who  laboured  in  the 
conversion  of  Lithuania.  See  below, 
c.  ix.  sect.  iv.  n  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  635. 

0  Palacky,  III.  i.  184,  188. 

p  Docum.  327  ;  see  Hefele,  vii.  32. 
The  last  of  these  propositions  : — “That 
all  religions,  without  distinction,  were 
invented  by  the  devil,”  was  sometimes 
misrepresented  as  if  the  word  religions 
were  intended  to  bear  its  ordinary  mo¬ 
dern  sense.  But  it  really  meant  reli¬ 
gious  (i.  e.  monastic)  orders ;  and  in 
Doc.  330  there  are  the  words  “  ordines 
religiosos.”  (See  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  127, 
332;  iii.  211.)  Alzog  unfairly  quotes 
the  word  in  both  senses,  i.  37  ;  ii.  20a 


Chap.  VII.  a.d.  1403-9.  CONDEMNED  AT  PRAGUE. 


315 


many  truths. ‘i  Others  took  a  similar  part,  and  the  im¬ 
pugned  articles  found  a  defender  in  Stanislaus  of  Znaym, 
who  afterwards  became  one  of  Hus’s  bitterest  enemies/ 
The  contest  went  on.  In  1405  the  archbishop  was 
desired  by  Innocent  VII.  to  be  zealous  in  suppressing 
the  heresies  which  were  said  to  be  rife  in  Bohemia ;  and 
in  consequence  of  this  he  uttered  denunciations  against 
the  adherents  of  Wyclif,  especially  with  regard  to  his  eu- 
charistic  doctrine/  In  1408  Stephen,  a  Carthusian,  and 
prior  of  Dolan,  put  forth  a  formal  treatise  against  Wyclif’s 
•opinions,1  and  in  the  same  year  the  forty-five  propositions 
were  again  condemned  by  the  university.11 

Wenceslaus,  although  deeply  angered  at  the  part  which 
the  popes  had  taken  as  to  his  deposition  from  the  empire, 
was  unwilling  that  his  kingdom  should  lie  under  the  im¬ 
putation  of  heresy,  more  especially  as  such  a  charge  would 
have  interfered  with  the  hope  which  he  still  cherished  of 
recovering  his  lost  dignity.  In  1408,  therefore,  he  desired 
the  archbishop  of  Prague  to  inquire  into  the  state  of  reli¬ 
gion  ;  and  the  result  was  that  the  archbishop, 
with  a  synod,  declared  Bohemia  to  be  free 
from  the  taint  of  Wyclifism.  But  he  ordered  that  all  copies 
of  Wyclifs  writings  should  be  given  up  for  examination 
and  correction — an  order,  which,  even  if  seriously  meant, 
appears  to  have  been  ineffectual ;  and  it  was  forbidden 
that  Wyclifs  propositions  should  be  taught  in  the  univer¬ 
sity  in  their  heretical  sense  (for  as  to  the  real  meaning  of 
some  of  them  there  was  a  dispute),  and  that  any  one 


July  17,  1409. 


1  Neand.  ix.  356 ;  Palacky,  III.  i. 
196. 

r  lb.  See  above,  p.  309,  n.  b. 

8  Docum.  332,  335  ;  Palacky,  III.  i. 
213. 

1  ‘  Medulla  Tritici  [Deut.  xxxii.  14] 
seu  Antiwiklefus,’  in  Pez,  IV.  ii.  151- 
360.  For  an  account  of  Stephen,  who 
is  said  to  have  been  chancellor  of  Bo¬ 
hemia  before  he  became  a  monk,  see 


Pez’s  Introduction,  He  afterwards 
wrote  other  tracts,  which  are  printed 
in  the  same  volume: — * Antihussus,’ 
‘  Dialogus  Volatilis  ’  (between  a  Wyc- 
lifite  goose  and  a  sparrow),  etc.  The 
date  of  this  last  was  1414,  and  the  writer 
justifies  all  the  proceedings  against  Hus 
to  that  time.  See  Hefele,  vii.  38. 

“  Ik.  35. 


3l6 


CHANGE  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY. 


Book  VIII. 


should  lecture  on  his  Trialogue  or  on  his  work  on  the 
eucharist.x 

The  part  which  the  university  had  taken  in  the  late 
proceeding  incited  Hus  and  Jerome  to  attempt  an  im¬ 
portant  change  in  its  constitution ;  and  their  plans 
were  favoured  by  the  circumstances  of  the  time.  The 
council  of  Pisa  was  about  to  meet.  Wenceslaus,  influ¬ 
enced  by  France  and  hoping  to  recover  the  empire,  took 
part  with  it,  while  the  university,  under  the  dominating 
influence  of  the  German  nations,  adhered  to  Gregory 
XII.  Hence  the  king  was  disposed  to  fall  in  with 
Hus’s  scheme  ;  and  in  January  1409  he  decreed  that  the 
Bohemian  nation  should  for  the  future  have  three  votes 

_  _  in  the  university,  while  the  other  three  nations 

fan.  io,  1409.  ..........  ,  .  ... 

collectively  should  have  but  one  vote  ;  in  like 

manner  (it  was  said),  as  the  French  had  three  votes  at 
Paris,  and  the  Italians  at  Bologna. y  It  was  in  vain  that 
the  Germans  petitioned  against  this ; z  and,  after  having 
solemnly  bound  themselves  by  an  engagement  that,  if  the 
decree  should  be  carried  out,  they  would  withdraw  from 
Prague  and  would  never  return, a  they  found  themselves 
obliged  to  fulfil  their  threat.  Out  of  more  than  7000 
members  of  the  university,13  only  2000  were  left ;  of  the 
5000  seceders,  some  attached  themselves  to  existing 
universities,  such  as  Cracow,  while  others  founded  the 

universities  of  Ingolstadt  and  Leipzig.0  Hus 
Oct.  17, 1409.  .  r  , 

was  again  chosen  rector  of  the  Bohemian 

university ; d  but,  while  stories  to  his  discredit  were  sedu- 


x  Neand.  ix.  364  ;  Palacky,  III.  i. 
221  ;  Hefele,  vii.  36. 

y  Doc.  347  ;  cf.  358.  See  Lechler,  i. 
1 51-3.  A  chronicler,  quoted  in  Doc. 
731,  says  that  Wenceslaus  made  the 
change  because  the  foreign  nations  op¬ 
posed  his  wish  to  withdraw  obedience 
from  the  pope. 

z  Doc.  350  (Feb.  9). 

*  lb.  352,  732.  Cf.  Hus,  in  V.  d. 


Hardt,  iv.  312. 

b  Palacky  (III.  i.  183)  thinks  Pel- 
zel’s  estimate,  7000,  too  low  ;  others 
make  the  number  of  students  30,000, 
or  even  reckon  the  seceders  at  44,000. 
See  Seyfr.  61. 

c  See  Herm.  Corner,  in  Eccard,  ii 
1195  ;  Seyfr.  62-4. 

d  lb.  64-5. 


Chap.  VII.  a. d.  1408-9.  FRESH  CHARGES  AGAINST  HUS.  3  I  7 


lously  spread  in  foreign  countries  by  those  who  charged 
him  with  having  expelled  them  from  Prague, e  he  found 
that  his  success  had  also  raised  up  against  him  many 
enemies  at  home,  especially  among  those  citizens  of 
Prague  whose  interests  had  suffered  through  the  with¬ 
drawal  of  the  foreign  students.* 

Hus  had  been  zealous  for  the  council  of  Pisa,  as 
promising  a  better  hope  of  reform  than  any  that  was  to 
be  expected  from  a  pope,  and  he  exerted  himself  actively 
in  detaching  those  whom  he  could  influence  from  the 
party  of  Gregory  XII.  By  this  he  drew  on  himself,  in 
common  with  others  who  had  opposed  Gregory,  a  sen¬ 
tence  from  the  archbishop  of  suspension  from  preaching 
and  from  all  priestly  functions  ;s  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  many  of  the  clergy  who  adhered  to  Gregory  were 
severely  treated  by  the  king.h  The  prohibition  of 
preaching  was  unheeded  by  Hus,  who  seems  to  have 
believed  that  his  ordination  gave  him  a  privilege  as  to 
this  of  which  he  could  not  be  deprived.1  The  chapel  of 
Bethlehem  resounded  with  his  unsparing  invectives  against 
the  vices  of  all  classes  of  men;  and  cardinal  Peter  d’Ailly 
seems  to  have  had  reason  for  telling  him,  long  after,  that 
he  had  done  wrong  in  denouncing  the  faults  of  cardinals 
and  prelates  before  audiences  which  were  not  qualified  to 
understand  or  to  judge  of  such  topics,  and  could  only 
be  inflamed  by  them.k  Fresh  charges  were  now  brought 
against  him — that  by  his  preaching  he  fomented  quarrels 
between  the  Bohemians  and  the  Germans ; 1  that  he  abused 
the  clergy  and  the  archbishop,  so  that  a  mob  excited  by 

e  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  453.  licitis.” 

f  Theobald,  7  ;  Neand.  ix.  367  ;  h  Neand.  ix.  368. 

Giesel.  II.  iii.  398.  1  See  Ep.  11,  p.  24. 

S  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  87 ;  Palacky,  III.  k  This  was  at  the  council  of  Con- 

i.  227.  In  Ep.  2,  he  begs  the  arch-  stance.  (Doc.  293.)  Hus  wrote  a  traCf 
bishop  not  to  suspend  him  for  neutrality  justifying  his  attacks  on  the  clergy, — 
as  to  the  papacy,  and  professes  himself  ‘  De  arguendo  clero,’  Opp.  i.  149. 
willing  to  obey  Gregory  “  in  omnibus  1  Doc.  168. 


318  CHARGES  AGAINST  HUS.  BookVIII. 

him  had  once  beset  the  archiepiscopal  palace ; m  that  he 
persisted  in  his  attacks  notwithstanding  all  warnings,  and 
drew  people  from  their  parish  churches  to  listen  to  them; n 
that  he  had  spoken  of  Wyclif  as  a  venerable  man,  who 
had  been  called  a  heretic  because  he  spoke  the  truth,0 
and  had  expressed  a  wish  that  his  soul  might  be  with 
that  of  Wyclif;  p  that  he  denied  the  power  of  the  church 
in  punishing;  that  he  mocked  at  the  authority  of  the 
church  and  her  doctors  ;q  that  he  denied  the  validity  of 
ministrations  performed  by  one  who  was  in  mortal  sin  ; r 
and  that,  without  distinguishing  between  exactions  and 
lree  gifts,  he  condemned  as  a  heretic  any  priest  who 
received  money  in  connexion  with  the  administration  of 
a  sacrament.55  As  to  some  of  these  points  it  would  seem 
that  he  was  not  really  chargeable  with  anything  more  than 
the  indiscretion  of  using  language  which  was  almost 
certain  to  be  misunderstood.1  Thus  he  declared  that 
in  his  words  about  Wyclifs  soul  he  had  not  taken  it  on 
himself  positively  to  affirm  the  English  doctor’s  salva¬ 
tion;11  and  he  admitted  that  God’s  sacraments  are  validly 
administered  by  evil  as  well  as  by  good  priests,  forasmuch 
as  the  Divine  power  operates  alike  through  both.x 

Archbishop  Zbynko  at  length  found  himself  obliged 
to  yield  as  to  the  council  of  Pisa,  and  to 
2, 1409.  acpnowiecjge  jts  pope,  Alexander  V.y  The 

change  was  unfavourable  to  Hus,  as  the  pope  was  now 

_  more  likely  to  listen  to  the  archbishop’s 

Dec.  20,  1409.  f  r  , 

representations.  In  consequence  of  these, 

Alexander  addressed  to  Zbynko  a  bull,  stating  that  the 

errors  of  the  condemned  heresiarch  Wyclif  were  reported 

to  be  rife  in  Bohemia,  and  desiring  him  to  forbid  all 

preaching  except  in  cathedral,  parochial,  or  monastic 

,n  Doc.  168.  “  lb.  166.  1  lb.  165-6.  r  lb.  164-5. 

0  lb.  168.  *  lb.  166-7.  *  Neand.  ix.  388-9. 

J*  lb.  167.  This  was  also  an  earlier  8  Doc.  161,  168.  x  lb.  165-7. 

and  a  later  charge  (ib.  154,  177).  ?  Ib.  372,  733. 


Chap.  VII.  a. d.  1409-10.  EURNING  OF  WYCLIF’s  BOOKS.  3  1 9 


churches.2  In  compliance  with  this  bull,  the  archbishop 

ordered  that  preaching  in  private  chapels  _ 

.  ,  ,  1  .  .  ,  .  \  Jun.  16,  1410. 

should  cease, a  and  it  was  understood  that 

Bethlehem  chapel  was  especially  aimed  at.  The  bull 

was  received  with  great  indignation  by  the  Bohemian 

nobles.  Hus  declared  that  it  had  been  surreptitiously 

obtained ;  that  he  could  not,  out  of  obedience  either  to 

the  archbishop  or  to  the  pope,  refrain  from  preaching ; b 

he  appealed  “  from  the  pope  ill  informed  to  the  pope 

when  he  should  be  better  informed  ” ;  he  contended  that 

Bethlehem  chapel  did  not  fall  under  the  prohibition,  and, 

in  reliance  on  the  deed  of  foundation  and  on  his  appeal, 

he  continued  to  preach  as  before.0 

A  fresh  order  was  issued  by  the  archbishop  that  all 
copies  of  Wyclifs  writings  should  be  delivered 
up ;  and  a  commission  of  doctors,  being 
appointed  to  examine  them,  condemned  not  only  the 
Dialogue  and  the  Trialogue,  with  the  treatises  on  the 
Eucharist,  on  Simony,  and  on  Civil  Dominion,  but  a 
work  on  the  Reality  of  Universals,  and  other  writings  of 
a  purely  philosophical  nature.3  It  was  announced  that 
there  was  to  be  a  great  bonfire  of  Wyclifs  books.  The 
university  petitioned  the  king  against  this,  and  Zbynko 
assured  him  that  it  should  not  be  carried  out  without  his 
consents  But  in  violation  of  this  promise,  and  under  the 
pretence  that  Wenceslaus  had  not  expressly  forbidden  the 
burning,  the  archbishop  soon  after  surrounded 
his  palace  with  guards,  and  caused  about  two  ^uIy  l6‘ 
hundred  volumes  of  Wyclifs  writings,  with  some  works  of 
Militz  and  others, — many  of  them  precious  for  beauty  of 


Jun.  16,  1410. 


z  Doc.  189.  8  lb.  378. 

b  Ep.  11,  p.  24 ;  De  Eccles.  Opp.  i. 


*35* 


1  Ep.  11 ;  Doc.  387-90,  724  ;  Neand. 
ix.  376;  cf.  Ep.  9.  Gregory  XII.,  in 
1408,  had  confirmed  the  foundation  of 
Bethlehem.  Doc.  340. 


d  lb.  380. 

e  lb.  386,  396.  Another  story  is, 
that  the  archbishop  promised  to  wait 
until  the  arrival  of  Jodocus,  marquis  of 
Moravia,  and  that,  as  the  marquis  did 
not  come,  the  affair  went  on,  lb.  734. 


32° 


EXCITEMENT  AT  PRAGUE. 


Book  VIII 


penmanship  and  of  binding/ — to  be  committed  to  the 
flames,  while  Te  Dcum  was  chanted  and  all  the  bells  ot 
the  churches  were  rung  “  as  if  for  the  dead.”  Two  days 
later  Hus  and  his  associates  in  the  late  pro- 

July  iS.  were  solemnly  excommunicated.g  Yet 

the  condemned  books  had  not  been  all  destroyed,  and 
fresh  copies  were  speedily  multiplied.11 

By  these  proceedings  a  great  excitement  was  produced. 
The  archbishop,  while  publishing  his  ban  in  the  cathe¬ 
dral,  was  interrupted  by  a  serious  outbreak  ;  and  there 
were  fights  in  which  some  lives  were  lost.1  The  arch¬ 
bishop  was  derided  in  ballads  as  an  “  alphabetarian,”  who 
had  burnt  books  which  he  could  not  read.k  Hus,  in  his 
sermons,  condemned  the  burning  in  a  more  serious  strain. 
It  had  not,  he  said,  rooted  out  any  evil  from  a  single 
heart,  but  had  destroyed  many  good  and  holy  thoughts  ; 
it  had  given  occasion  for  disorder,  hatred,  even  blood¬ 
shed.1  He  also  set  forth  a  treatise  in  which  he  main¬ 
tained,  on  the  authority  of  fathers  and  ecclesiastical 
writers,  that  the  books  of  heretics  (under  which  name 
he  would  not  include  any  one  who  did  not  contradict 
Holy  Scripture  “  by  word,  writing,  or  deed),”111 
J  }  x  ought  not  to  be  burnt,  but  read.11  He  de¬ 
clared,  with  reference  to  the  archbishop’s  prohibitions 
and  censures,  that  he  must  obey  God,  and  not  man ;  and 
he,  with  some  friends,  announced  that  on  certain  days 
they  would  publicly  defend  certain  of  Wyclifs  books 
against  all  assailants.0 

On  the  election  of  John  XXIII.  as  pope,  Hus  renewed 


f  JEn.  Sylvius,  Hist.  Bohem.  c.  35, 
p.  104. 

£  Doc.  397,  734;  Palacky,  III.  i.  251. 
h  Steph.  Dolan,  in  Pez,  IV.  ii.  336. 

1  Doc.  734;  Palacky,  III.  i.  253; 
Neand.  ix.  378. 

k  Steph.  Dolan,  in  Pez,  IV.  ii.  118. 
Wenceslaus  forbade  such  songs,  under 


pain  of  death.  Cochlseus,  18. 

1  Opera,  i.  106.  m  Fol.  104. 

n  De  Libris  Hsereticorum  Legendis. 
Opp.  i.  102,  seqq. 

0  Doc.  399;  Palacky,  III.  i.  254. 
Cf.  Defens.  Articul.  Wickleffi,  Opp.  i. 
1 13,  seqq.  (a.D.  1412). 


Chap. VII.  a.d.  1409-10.  HUS  EXCOMMUNICATED. 


321 


his  appeal ;  and  the  king  and  queen  wrote  letters  in  his 

favour,  requesting  that  the  prohibition  of  preaching  except 

in  churches  of  certain  kinds  might  be  withdrawn,  so  that 

there  should  be  no  interference  with  Bethlehem  chapel.1’ 

Commissioners  were  appointed  to  inquire  _ 

,  TT  ...  Oct.  1.  1410. 

into  the  case,  and  Hus  was  cited  to  appear 

at  Bologna  H  but  he  was  advised  by  his  friends  that  his 
life  would  be  in  danger,  as  plots  were  laid  to  cut  him  olf 
by  the  way.  It  seemed  to  him  that  to  expose  himself  to 
death  without  any  prospect  of  advantage  to  the  church 
would  be  a  tempting  of  God;  he  therefore  contented 
himself  with  sending  advocates  to  plead  his  Sept.— Oct. 
cause,  while  the  king,  the  queen,  and  the  14I°- 
nobles  of  Bohemia,  the  university  of  Prague  and  the 
magistrates  of  the  city,  entreated  the  pope  by  letters  that 
he  might  be  excused  from  obeying  the  citation  in  person, 
and  might  be  allowed  to  carry  on  his  ministry  as  before/ 
The  representatives  whom  Hus  sent  to  Bologna  were  un¬ 
able  to  obtain  a  hearing ;  some  of  them  were  imprisoned 
and  otherwise  ill  treated ; s  and  Cardinal  Brancacci,  the 
last  commissioner  to  whom  the  affair  was  referred,  pro¬ 
nounced  against  him — excommunicating  him  with  all  his 
adherents,  and  decreeing  that  any  place  in  which  he 
.might  be  should  be  interdicted/  Archbishop  Zbynko 
soon  after  uttered  an  interdict  against  Prague,11  whereupon 
Wenceslaus,  in  anger,  punished  some  of  the  clergy  for 
obeying  it,  while  both  he  and  his  queen  continued  their 
intercessions  with  the  pope  in  behalf  of  Hus,  and  en- 


p  Doc.  190,  409,  seqq.  ;  Palacky,  III. 
255-6.  1  Doc.  734. 

r  Hus,  Epp.  9, 10, 14,  36 ;  De  Eccles. 
Opp.  i.  244*  ;  Doc.  190,  409-15,  725  ; 
Giesel.  II.  lii.  402  ;  Palacky,  III.  i.  258. 
8  Doc.  191 ;  Hist.  p.  lx.  Cf.  De  Eccl. 

1  Doc.  192.  Yet  it  was  decreed,  after 
an  investigation  at  Bologna,  that  Wy- 
clifs  books  should  not  be  burnt — only 

VOL.  VII. 


that  some  parts  of  his  opinions  which 
seemed  questionable  should  not  be 
taught  in  Bohemia.  Nov.  25,  1410. 
Doc.  189,  426. 

u  lb.  429.  The  motive  is  mainly 
that  the  citizens  had  invaded  church- 
property.  The  chronicler  in  Doc.  735 
says  that  the  king  confiscated  the  reve¬ 
nues  of  the  clergy  before  the  interdict 
was  pronounced. 


21 


322 


HUS’S  LETTER  TO  THE  POPE. 


Book  VIII. 


treated  that  the  orthodoxy  of  Bohemia  might  not  be 
defamed  through  misrepresentations.  After  a  time,  the 
archbishop,  finding  that  he  was  unable  to  make  head 
against  the  opposing  influence^,  and  that  pope  John  was 
not  likely  to  give  him  any  effective  support,  became 
desirous  of  a  compromise.  A  commission  of  ten  persons, 
appointed  by  the  king  to  consider  how  peace  might  be 
restored,  advised  that  the  archbishop  should 

U  *  141  ’  report  Bohemia  to  be  free  from  the  infection 
of  heresy,  and  should  request  the  pope  to  recal  the  cita¬ 
tion  of  Hus  with  the  excommunication  which  had  been 
pronounced  against  him.x  To  this  Zbynko  consented ; 
c  t  0  but,  although  a  letter  to  the  pope  had  been 
prepared, y  the  execution  of  the  plan  was 
prevented  by  the  archbishop’s  death,  when  on  his  way 
to  invoke  the  support  of  the  king’s  brother,  Sigismund  of 
Hungary,  in  the  religious  distractions  of  Bohemia.2 

In  September  1411  Hus  addressed  to  the  pope  a  letter 
which  was  intended  to  vindicate  himself  against  the  mis¬ 
representations  which  had  been  made  of  his  opinions.'1 
He  denies  having  taught  that  the  material  bread  remains 
in  the  sacrament  Qf  the  altar;  that  the  host,  when  elevated, 
is  Christ’s  body,  but  ceases  to  be  so  when  lowered  again; 
that  a  priest  in  mortal  sin  cannot  consecrate;13  that 
secular  lords  may  refuse  to  pay  tithes,  and  may  take  away 
the  possessions  of  the  clergy.0  He  also  denied  that  he 
had  caused  the  withdrawal  of  the  Germans  from  Prague  ; 
it  was,  he  said,  the  effect  of  the  resolution  which  they  had 


31  Doc.  193,  434*40-  y  lb.  441. 

*  lb.  445,  736 ;  Steph.  Dolan.  In  Pez, 
IV.  ii.  419;  Palacky,  II.  iii.  271. 

“  Ep.  9. 

b  So  in  his  treatise,  f  De  Ccena  Do¬ 
mini,’  written  in  prison  at  Constance, 
he  denies  “me  unquam  prsedicasse 
quod  sacerdos  existens  in  peccato 
mortali  non  conficit  et  non  consecrat. 
Verum  quiuem  est,  quod  dixi  et  prae- 


dicavi,  scripsi  et  scribo,  quod  quilibet 
talis  non  conficit  et  non  consecrat  digne 
et  meritorie,  sed  indigne  Deo  et  siLi 
in  przejudicium  conficit  et  consecrat, 
despiciens  nomen  Dei  sui.”  Opera,  i. 
39* 

c  Cf.  ‘  De  Ablatione  Temporalium,’ 
Opp.  i.  1 17*,  seqq. ;  and,  as  to  the 
Wyclifite  proposition  that  dominion  is 
founded  on  grace,  ib.  128,  seqq. 


Chap.  VII.  a.d.  1411-12.  BULL  AGAINST  LADISLAUS.  323 

taken  in  the  belief  that  without  them  the  university  could 
not  subsist.*1  He  maintained  that  Bethlehem  was  not  a 
private  chapel,  explained  his  reasons  for  not  complying 
with  the  citation  to  the  papal  court,  and  entreated  that 
he  might  be  excused  on  this  account,  and  might  be 
released  from  the  consequences  which  had  followed.6 

The  successor  of  Zbynko  was  Albic  of  Uniczow, 

who,  before  entering  into  holy  orders,  had  been  the 

king’s  physician.1  The  dean  of  Passau,  who 

j  1  nr  1  .  ,  .  ,  May,  1412. 

conveyed  the  pall  for  the  new  archbishop, 

was  also  the  bearer  of  a  papal  bull,  by  which  a  crusade 
was  proclamed  against  Ladislaus,  king  of  Naples,  as 
being  excommunicate,  with  large  offers  of  indulgences 
and  other  privileges.®  Wenceslaus  allowed  this  bull  to 
be  published  in  Bohemia,  although  he  was  soon  disgusted 
by  the  impudent  pretensions  and  proceedings  of  those 
who  undertook  the  publication,  as  well  as  by  the  serious 
drain  of  money  which  was  paid  for  commutation  of  per¬ 
sonal  service.  The  German  clergy  of  Prague  obeyed  the 
papal  orders  ; h  but  Hus  and  Jerome  vehemently  opposed 
the  bull,  denouncing  it  as  an  antichristian  act  that,  for 
the  non-fulfilment  of  the  conditions  on  which  the  kingdom 
of  Naples  was  held  under  the  papacy,  a  crusade  should 
be  proclaimed  against  a  Christian  prince,  and  that  indul¬ 
gences  should  be  prostituted  by  the  promise  of  absolution 
as  a  reward  for  money  or  for  bloodshed.1  A  new  and 
formidable  commotion  arose.  Some  who  had  hitherto 
been  associated  with  Hus — especially  Stephen  of  Palecz, 
an  eminent  doctor  of  theology  k — now  took  the  papal  side  ; 

d  Cf.  Doc.  354.  Boh.  c.  35,  p.  204.  Cf.  Theob.  11. 

"  To  this  time  belongs  Hus’s  dispu-  s  There  are  two  bulls  in  Hus,  Opp. 

tation  with  John  Stokes,  an  English  i.  17 1-2*  h  Doc.  736. 

Carmelite.  Opp.  i.  108,  seqq..  *  Opera,  i.  303 *-304  ;  Doc.  223  ; 

f  Pius  II.  styles  him  “unicum  extre-  Palacky,  III.  i.  274.. 
mae  avaritiae  barathrum,”  and  tells  lu-  k  Palecz  and  Stanislaus  of  Znaym 
dicrous  stories  of  the  miserly  habits  (who  also  turned  against  Hus)  had  at 
which  were  imputed  to  him.  Hist.  one  time  gone  beyond  him  by  adopting 


324  DISTURBANCES  AT  PRAGUE.  Book  VIII. 

and  thus  a  breach  was  made  in  the  party  which  had  until 
then  been  bound  together  by  community  of  national  feel¬ 
ing  and  of  philosophical  and  religious  opinion.  Palecz 
became  one  of  the  bitterest  among  the  opponents  of  Hus; 
he  and  other  doctors  of  the  university  wrote  against  him, 
and  denounced  all  opposition  to  the  bull ;  but  Hus  per¬ 
sisted  in  his  course,1  and,  when  some  preachers  inveighed 
against  him  in  the  churches,  they  were  interrupted  by  the 
laity,  who  in  general  favoured  the  reformer.111  Hus  offered 
to  maintain  his  opinions  in  disputation,  on  condition 
that,  if  proved  to  be  wrong,  he  should  be  burnt,  provided 
that  the  other  party  would  submit  to  the  same  fate  in  case, 
of  defeat.  But  as  they  offered  to  sacrifice  only  one  out 
of  the  many  who  were  banded  against  the  solitary  cham¬ 
pion,  he  declared  that  the  terms  were  unequal,  and 
nothing  came  of  his  strange  challenge.11 

The  exciting  discourses  of  Hus  and  Jerome  were  heard 
with  enthusiasm  by  the  students,  who  showed  their  zealous 

sympathy  by  escorting  them  home  at  night. 

june  7,  1412.  ,r  r  7  • 

But  this  was  not  enough  for  some  of  their 
friends,  who  caused  the  bull  to  be  paraded  about  the  city, 
fixed  to  the  breasts  of  a  prostitute  who  was  seated  in  a 
cart,  and  afterwards  to  be  burnt  at  the  pillory.  The  chief 
contriver  of  this  scene  was  Woksa  of  Waldstein,  one  of 
the  king’s  courtiers  ;  but  the  impetuous  Jerome  was  so  far 
favourable  to  it  that  it  was  generally  ascribed  to  him,  and 
afterwards  became  the  foundation  of  one  of  the  charges 
against  him  at  Constance.0 

Wenceslaus  now  forbade  all  language  of  insult  against 
the  pope,  and  all  resistance  to  his  bulls,  under  pain  of 

Wyclifs  doctrine  as  to  the  eucharist.  ad  Stanisl.,  Opp.  i.  299*. 

See  p.  309  ;  Hefele,  vii.  34.  m  Doc.  736.  n  Palacky,  III.  i.  275. 

1  Doc.  448-51.  He  compares  the  0  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  672;  Palacky,  III. 
resistance  to  the  pope  in  the  matters  of  i-  277.  In  a  paper  of  charges  against 
the  crusade  and  of  Bethlehem  chapel  Wenceslaus,  presented  to  the  council, 
to  the  story  of  Balaam’s  ass  rebuking  he  is  blamed  for  keeping  Waldstein 
the  madness  of  the  prophet.  Respons.  about  him  after  this  affair.  Doc.  640. 


Chap.  VII.  a.d.  1412. 


THE  THREE  MARTYRS. 


325 


July  10. 


death. p  But  Hus  continued  his  preaching,  and  the  ex¬ 
citement  became  more  alarming.  One  day, 
as  a  preacher  of  the  crusade  was  setting  forth 
his  indulgences  in  a  church,  he  was  interrupted  by  three 
young  men,  belonging  to  the  class  of  artisans,  who  told 
him  that  he  lied,  that  master  Hus  had  taught  them  the 
vanity  of  such  privileges,  and  that  the  pope  was  antichrist 
for  proclaiming  them.q  The  three  were  carried  before 
the  magistrates  of  the  city,  and  next  day  were  condemned 
to  die,  in  accordance  with  the  king’s  late  decree.  Hus 
earnestly  interceded  for  them,  declaring  that,  if  any  one 
were  to  be  put  to  death,  he  was  himself  more  guilty  than 
they ; r  and  the  council  appears  to  have  promised  that 
their  lives  should  be  spared.  But  when  the  popular 
agitation  had  been  thus  calmed,  the  young  men  were 
hastily  executed.  The  passions  of  the  multitude  were 
now  stirred  to  the  uttermost.  When  the  executioner 
proclaimed,  in  the  usual  form,  “  Whoso  doth  the  like,  let 
him  expect  the  like  !  ”  a  general  cry  burst  forth,  “  We  are 
all  ready  to  do  and  to  suffer  the  like  !”s  Female  devo¬ 
tees  1  dipped  their  handkerchiefs  in  the  blood  of  the 
victims,  and  treasured  it  up  as  a  precious  relic  ;  some  of 
the  crowd  even  licked  the  blood. u  The  bodies  were 
carried  off  by  the  people,  and  were  borne  with  solemn 
pomp  to  interment  in  the  chapel  of  Bethlehem,  which 
thence  took  the  name  of  the  Three  Saints  or  Martyrs. x 
Hus  himself  did  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  them  as  martyrs 
in  sermons  and  writings  ;y  and,  although  he  had  not  even 
been  present  at  the  funeral  procession,  he  continued  to 
the  end  of  his  life  to  be  charged  with  having  been  the 
author  of  the  movement.2 


p  Steph.  Dolan.  380;  Neand.  ix.  415. 
s  Steph.  Dolan.  1.  c.  r  lb.  381. 
*  Palacky,  III.  i.  280. 

1  Stephen  of  Dolan  calls  them  be- 
guince ,  p.  381.  u  lb.  x  lb. 


y  De  Eccl.  Opp.  i.  245* ;  Mlade- 
novicz.  In  Doc.  312-T3. 

z  Steph.  Dolan.  1.  c.  ;  V.  d.  Hardt, 
iv.  327,  676;  Doc.  312;  Cochl.  39-40; 
Neand.  ix.  417-19.  The  celebration  of 


326 


HUS  AGAIN  CONDEMNED  AT  ROME.  Book  VIII. 


The  agitation  at  Prague  continued.  Hus  combated 
the  abuse  of  indulgences  with  untiring  zeal,  in  sermons, 
disputations,  and  tracts ;  he  denied  that  any  human 
judge  could  with  certainty  forgive  sins,a  and  maintained 
that  an  excommunication  unjustly  uttered  was  no  more 
to  be  dreaded  than  the  ban  of  the  Jewish  synagogue.b 
The  parties  became  more  violent  and  exasperated ;  the 
Germans  were  for  pulling  down  Bethlehem  chapel,0  while, 
on  the  other  side,  Hus  had  often  to  lament  the  discredit 
brought  on  his  cause  by  partisans  whose  zeal  was  neither 
tempered  by  discretion  nor  adorned  by  consistency  of 
life.d  Archbishop  Albic,  feeling  himself  unequal  to  con¬ 
tend  with  the  difficulties  of  the  case,  exchanged  his  see 
for  a  lower  but  more  tranquil  dignity,  and  was  succeeded 
by  Conrad  of  Vechta,  a  Westphalian,  formerly  bishop  oi 
Olmiitz,  who,  after  having  acted  as  administrator  of  the 
diocese  for  some  months,  was  enthroned  in  July  1413.® 
The  university  of  Prague  had  again  condemned  the 
forty-five  propositions  ascribed  to  Wyclif  in  July  1412  ;  ’ 
the  clergy  of  the  city  had  addressed  to  the  pope  a  letter 
against  Hus;g  and  on  the  festival  of  the  Purification, 
1413,  it  was  decreed  by  a  council  at  Rome,  under  John 
XXII I.,  that  all  WycliPs  works,  of  whatever  kind,  should 
be  burnt,  inasmuch  as,  although  there  might  be  truth 
m  some  of  them,  it  was  mixed  with  error. h  Hus  was 
excommunicated  and  anathematized  for  his  disregard  of 


the  three  as  martyrs  was  charged  on 
Jerome  as  idolatry,  on  the  ground  that 
no  one  can  be  sainted  without  the 
papal  sanction.  (V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  676.) 
Stephen  of  Dolan  attacks  the  incon¬ 
sistency  of  the  reverence  paid  to  the 
bodies  of  these  men  with  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  the  Hussites  as  to  relics.  381-2. 

*  Adv.  Indulgentias,  Opp.  i.  181-3. 
There  is  a  curious  passage  in  which  he 
objects  to  indulgences  that  they  would 
destroy  purgatory  and  all  the  practices 
connected  with  it.  184*. 


b  De  Erectione  Crucis,  ib.  188. 
c  Doc.  728.  d  Neand.  ix.  414. 

e  Palacky,  III.  i.288.  ./Eneas  Sylvius 
says  of  Albic,  “Cum  familiam  edentem 
bibentemque  ferre  non  posset,  et  minore 
contentus  officio  avaritize  serviebat  ” 
(Hist.  Bohem.  c.  42).  It  is  said  that 
he  received  a  compensation  in  money 
for  the  loss  of  dignity.  Theobald,  15. 
f  Doc.  451,  455  ;  Helele,  vii.  49. 
s  Doc.  457. 

h  Ib.  467  ;  Rayn.  14x3.  1-3.  See 
below,  p.  336. 


Chap.  VII.  a.d.  1412-13.  HUS  IN  RETIREMENT. 


327 


citations  to  the  papal  court.  Every  place  in  which  he 
might  be  was  to  be  interdicted ;  all  who  should  coun¬ 
tenance  him1  were  to  be  partakers  in  his  condemnation  ; 
and  it  was  ordered  that  the  sentence  should  be  every¬ 
where  published  with  the  most  solemn  forms  of  the 
church.k  The  new  archbishop  proceeded,  with  the  king’s 
consent,  to  carry  out  these  decrees,  pronouncing  an. 
interdict  on  all  Prague  except  the  royal  quarter,  and 
ordering  that  Bethlehem  chapel,  as  being  the  centre  of 
the  reforming  movement,  should  be  demolished.1  Hus 
protested  against  his  condemnation;  he  set  forth  an 
appeal  to  the  Saviour,  in  very  earnest  terms,1"  and,  after 
having  caused  a  protest  to  be  engraved  on  the  walls  of 
Bethlehem  chapel,  he  withdrew  from  the  tumults  of 
Prague,  at  the  king’s  request,  and  with  an  assurance  that 
Wenceslaus  would  endeavour  to  bring  about  ^ 
a  reconciliation  with  the  clergy."  For  a  time  ec’  I412' 
he  lived  in  retirement,  partly  in  the  castles  of  nobles  who 
favoured  his  opinions,0  but  chiefly  in  the  neighbourhood 
where  the  Hussite  town  of  Tabor  was  afterwards  founded^ 
He  kept  up  a  lively  correspondence  with  his  followers  at 
Prague,  whom  he  exhorted  not  to  allow  the  old  place  of 
his  ministrations  to  be  destroyed  ;  and,  notwithstanding 
the  sentences  which  had  been  pronounced  against  him, 
he  continued  his  preaching,  which,  wherever  he  went, 
aroused  a  strong  indignation  against  the  system  of  the 
Roman  church,  with  its  corruptions  of  doctrine  and  of 


1  “  Participantibus  loquendo,  astan- 
do,  assurgendo,  coambulando,  coequi- 
tando,  salutando,  sociando,  comedendo, 
bibendo,  molendo,  coquendo,  emendo 
vel  vendendo,  vestes  vel  calceamenta 
faciendo,  potum  vel  aquam  dando,  aut 
alia  necessaria  vel  amictus  qualiter- 
cunque  praestando,  aut  in  quocunque 
solatio  humano  participari  praesumant.  ” 
p.  634. 

k  De  Eccl.  Opp.  i.  253* ;  Doc.  461-4. 


Hus  ascribed  this  to  the  exertions  of 
Michael  de  Causis,  ib.  465. 

1  Palacky,  III.  i.  287. 
m  Doc.  464  ;  cf.  De  Eccl.  235*.  See 
a  note  in  Seyfr.  88. 

n  Palacky,  III.  i.  288.  There  are 
many  papers  relating  to  attempts  at 
making  peace.  Doc.  486,  seqq.  See 
Hefele,  vii.  52. 

0  Neand.  ix.  433.  See  Palacky,  III. 
i.  305.  p  Ib.  298.  1  Ep.  16,  etc. 


328 


HUS  ON  THE  CHURCH. 


Book  VIII. 


practice/  His  pen,  too,  was  actively  employed  in  the 
production  of  writings  in  Latin,  Bohemian,  and  German; s 
and  to  this  time  belongs  the  treatise  ‘  Of  the  Church,’ 
which  is  the  most  important  of  his  works. 

Resting  on  the  rigid  doctrine  of  predestination,  Hus 
says  that  to  be  in  the  church  is  not  the  same  as  to  be  of 
the  church.  Some  are  in  the  church  both  in  name  and 
reality ;  some  neither  in  the  one  nor  in  the  other,  as  the 
foreknown  heathen  ;  some  in  name  only,  as  the  fore¬ 
known  hypocrites ,  some  in  reality,  although  nominally 
they  are  without,  as  those  predestined  Christians  whom 
the  officers  of  antichrist  profess  to  exclude  by  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  censures.1  No  one  can  be  assured  of  his  predestina¬ 
tion,  except  through  special  revelation,  so  that  it  is  sur¬ 
prising  how  the  worldly  clergy  can  have  the  confidence 
to  claim  the  true  membership  of  the  church.u  Christ 
alone  is  head  of  the  church ;  St.  Peter  was  not  its  head, 
but  was  chief  of  the  apostles.  The  pope  is  the  vicar  of 
St.  Peter,  if  he  walk  in  his  steps ;  but  if  he  give  into 
covetousness,  he  is  the  vicar  of  Judas  Iscariot.x  The 
pope  and  cardinals  are  not  the  body  of  the  church  ;  but 
they  are  the  chief  part  of  it  as  to  dignity,  if  they  follow 
Christ  in  humility. y  The  pope  owes  his  pre-eminence 
to  Constantine,  whose  alleged  donation  Hus  believes  as 
firmly  as  he  believes  the  tale  of  pope  Joan.2  He  repro¬ 
bates  the  flattery  which  w*as  commonly  used  towards 
the  pope,a  and  denounces  the  luxury  and  other  cor¬ 
ruptions  of  the  cardinals/  He  disowns  the  charge  of 
disobedience  to  the  church,  justifies  himself  as  to  the 


r  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  605-15. 

•  Palacky,  III.  i.  297.  Hus’s  Bohe¬ 
mian  writings  have  been  edited  by 
K.  J.  Erben,  Prague,  1865.  See  Mr. 
Wratislaw  in  ‘  Contemp.  Rev.’  x.  530. 

*  Opera,  i.  200.  u  lb.  203*-204*. 
x  lb.  210,  211*,  220,  222*.  Cf.  Ep. 

29.  At  fol.  234,  we  have  a  piece  of 


etymology  like  that  of  Claudius  of 
Turin  (see  vol.  iii.  p.  315)  :  “  Apostoli- 
cus  dicitur  viam  Apostoli  cw-rtodiens.” 
y  Opera,  i.  207-8. 

*  lb.  224*.  The  story  of  the  female 
pope,  whom  he  calls  Agnes,  is  very 
often  brought  forward  by  Hus.  Ib.  207, 
220,  etc.  *  Ib.  229.  b  Ib.  234*. 


Chap.  VII.  a.d.  1412. 


SYNOD  AT  PRAGUE. 


32  9 


matters  which  had  brought  him  under  censure,  and 
declares  that  excommunications,  interdicts,  and  other 
sentences,  if  unjustly  pronounced,  are  of  no  effect,  and 
are  not  to  be  regarded.0  God  alone,  he  says,  knows  to 
whom  sin  is  to  be  forgiven  ;  and  Christ  is  the  only  true 
Roman  high-priest,  whom  all  are  bound  to  obey  in  order 
to  salvation.*1 

This  treatise  was  written  in  consequence  of  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  a  synod  at  Prague,  where  Plus  ^ 

,  .  ,  .  c  -T  •  •  Dec.  X4I2. 

was  represented  by  John  01  Jessimtz,  a 
doctor  of  canon  law ;  but  there  was  no  definite  result ; e 
and  it  was  followed  up  by  other  writings  against  the  chiefs 
of  the  ecclesiastical  party.  While  Hus  had  been  com¬ 
pelled  to  leave  Prague,  Jerome,  too,  withdrew,  probably  of 
his  own  accord,  and  betook  himself  again  to  travel — in  the 
course  of  which  he  made  his  way  into  Russia.1  Before 
his  return,  Hus  had  already  set  out  to  present  himself 
before  the  council  of  Constance. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


FROM  THE  ELECTION  OF  POPE  ALEXANDER  V.  TO  THE 
END  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 

A.D.  1409-1418. 

The  hopes  of  union  and  of  reformation  which  had  been 

connected  with  the  council  of  Pisa  were  not  to  be  realized. 

•* 

*  Opera,  231,  235^-6,  244-5*,  251-2.  in  his  ‘Answer  to  the  VIII.  Doctors.' 
d  lb.  215*,  218.  The  contents  of  e  Palacky,  III.  i.  294-6.  See  the 
the  book  ‘De  Ecclesia’  are  in  great  ‘  Repetitio  M.  Jo.  Jessinitz,’ in  Hus. 
part  repeated  in  Hus’s  writings  against  i.  336.  f  lb.  300. 

Palecz  and  Stanislaus  of  Znaym,  and 


33° 


ALEXANDER  V. 


Book  VIII, 


Both  Gregory  XII.  and  Benedict  XIII.  continued  to 
maintain  their  claims  to  the  papacy,  so  that  instead  of 
two  popes  there  were  now  three,  or,  in  the  language  oi 
a  writer  of  the  time,  the  church  had  received  a  third 
husband  in  addition  to  those  who  already  claimed  her 
affections/1  Soon  after  the  election  of  Alexander  V., 
Gerson  addressed  to  him  a  discourse  on  the  duties  of  his 
office ; b  but  Alexander  was  not  inclined  to  benefit  by 
this  advice.  Although  a  learned  theologian,  he  was 
altogether  without  the  strength  of  character  which  is 
requisite  for  government.0  His  easiness  of  disposition 
led  him  to  grant  all  that  was  asked  of  him.  Himself 
careless  as  to  matters  of  business,  he  advanced  many 
Franciscans  to  places  for  which  they  were  unfitted  by 
their  want  of  pratical  habits  ;  in  order  to  provide  for  the 
multitude  of  applicants,  he  increased  the  offices  of  his 
court  to  such  a  degree  that  they  fell  into  contempt  ;d  and 
although,  having  no  kindred,  he  was  free  from  the  temp¬ 
tations  of  nepotism,  he  was  lavish  in  gifts,  especially  to 
the  order  of  which  he  had  been  a  member,  and  in  whose 
society  he  continued  to  live.e  Such  was  his  profusion  in 
his  new  dignity,  that  he  spoke  of  himself  as  having  been 
rich  as  a  bishop,  poor  as  a  cardinal,  but  a  beggar  as 
pope/  Instead  of  attempting  at  once  the  work  of 
reform,  he  professed  to  reserve  it  for  a  council  which  was 


*  “  Bivira  fueram  et  triviram  fece- 
runt.”  Th.  de  Vrie,  Hist.  Cone.  Con¬ 
stant.  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  148.  (This 
book  is  a  mixture  of  prose  and  verse — 
in  form  an  imitation  of  Boethius  de  Con- 
solatione  Philosophise.  The  speakers 
are  Christ  and  the  church.  It  begins 
by  setting  forth  the  disorders  of  the 
time.  The  church  expresses  doubts, 
but  the  Saviour  assures  her.  He 
quotes  Gratian’s  ‘Decretum’  largely, 
relates  the  events  of  the  council  of 
Constance,  and  profusely  eulogises 
Sigismund.) 


b  Gerson,  ii.  13 1.  That  it  is  wrong 
to  suppose  this  a  sermon  preached  be¬ 
fore  the  pope,  see  Schwab,  213 ;  He- 
fele,  vi.  895. 

c  Pet.  de  Alliaco,  De  Diffic.  Reform. 
Eccl.  in  Cone.  Generali,  ap.  Gerson,  ii. 
872. 

a  Theod.  Niem,  iii.  51-2  ;  Pet.  de 
Alliaco,  1.  c.  ;  Giesel.  II.  iv.  5. 

e  Th.  Niem,  iii.  51.  Wadding  is 
very  angry  that  anything  should  be 
said  against  the  Franciscan  pope,  and 
collects  testimonies  in  his  favour,  ix. 
333-40.  1  Platina,  282. 


Chap.  VIII.  a. d.  1409.  HIS  LULL  FOR  THE  FRIARS. 


331 


Oct.  12. 


to  meet  in  1412;  and  on  the  7th  of  August  1409  he 
dissolved  the  council  of  Pisa.g 

Soon  after  this  Alexander  displayed  his  partiality  for 
his  associates,  and  added  to  the  subjects  of  discord  which 
already  existed  in  the  church,  by  a  bull,  in  which  he 
authorized  the  members  of  the  mendicant 
orders  to  receive  tithes,  and  not  only  to  hear 
confessions  and  to  give  absolution  everywhere,  but  to 
administer  the  other  sacraments,  without  regard  to  the 
rights  of  bishops  or  of  parish  priests  ;  and  the  parochial 
clergy  were  charged  to  read  in  all  churches  this  annihila¬ 
tion  of  their  own  rights,  under  pain  of  being  punished 
as  contumacious  and  obstinate  heretics.11  Immediately  a 
great  ferment  was  excited.  While  the  Augustine  friars 
and  the  Franciscans  took  advantage  of  it,  and  the  latter 
especially  displayed  much  elation  on  account  of  their  new 
privileges,  the  Dominicans  and  the  Carmelites  disowned 
it,  as  something  which  they  had  not  asked  for  and  of 
which  they  had  no  need.1  The  university  of  Paris, 
headed  by  Gerson,  sent  envoys  to  the  papal  court  for  the 
purpose  of  inspecting  the  original  document,  as  if  nothing 
less  than  such  evidence  could  be  enough  to  warrant  its 
genuineness;  and,  as  it  professed  to  be  issued  with  the 
consent  and  advice  of  the  cardinals,  the  envoys  waited 
on  the  members  of  the  college  individually,  whom  they 
found  unanimous  in  disavowing  all  concern  in  it.k  By 


s  Mansi,  xxvi.  1155-6.  As  to  the 
authority  of  this  council,  which  claimed 
to  be  oecumenical,  there  have  been  dif¬ 
ferences  of  opinion  in  the  Roman  com¬ 
munion.  St.  Antoninus  of  Florence 
treats  it  as  doubtful  (hi.  470-1).  Bel- 
larmine  speaks  of  the  council  as  “  nec 
approbatum  nec  reprobatum,”  although 
he  inclines  to  regard  Alexander  and 
his  successor  as  the  true  popes  (De 
Concil.  et  Eccl.  i.  8,  Opp.  t.  ii.  ed.  Col. 
Agr.  1618),  while  other  curialists,  in 
later  times,  have  declared  for  Gregory 


XII.  The  Gallicans,  from  Gerson 
downwards,  have  generally  regarded 
it  as  oecumenical.  See  Giesel.  II.  iv. 
8  ;  Schwab,  257-8  ;  Hefele,  i.  52. 

11  “  Regnans  in  excelsis,”  ap.  Mon. 
Sandjon.  iv.  290;  Gerson,  ii.  431,  seqq. ; 
D’Argentre,  I.  ii.  180 ;  Bui.  v.  200. 
The  bull  is  said  to  have  been  procured 
chiefly  at  the  instance  of  John  Gorel, 
a  Franciscan,  who  will  be  mentioned 
elsewhere.  Bui.  v.  201. 

‘  Mon.  Sandion.  iv.  290. 
k  lb. 


332 


DEATH  OF  ALEXANDER  V. 


Rook  VIH 


this  bull  were  rescinded  no  less  than  seven  bulls  of 
former  popes.  The  papal  privilege  was  met  in  France 
by  the  expulsion  of  the  Franciscans  and  Augustinians 
from  the  university  of  Paris,  and  by  a  royal  order,  issued 
at  the  request  of  the  university,  forbidding  the  parochial 
clergy  to  let  the  mendicants  hear  confessions  or  preach 
in  their  churches.1 

Gregory  XII.,  after  his  attempt  to  hold  a  council  at 
Cividale,  had  withdrawn  to  Gaeta, m  where  he  lived  under 
the  protection  of  Ladislaus,  to  whom  it  is  said  that  he 
sold  his  rights  to  the  sovereignty  of  Rome  and  the  papal 
states.11  Ladislaus  got  possession  of  the  city  ;  but  after 
a  time  it  was  regained  for  Alexander  by 
A-ctJ“  the  legate  of  Bologna,  Balthazar  Cossa,  who 
was  aided  by  Lewis  of  Anjou,  by  the  Floren¬ 
tines,  and  by  an  insurrection  within  Rome  itself.0  Alex¬ 
ander  was  driven  from  Pisa  by  a  pestilence  ;  but  instead 
of  complying  with  the  invitation  of  the  Romans,  who 
sent  him  the  keys  of  their  city,  he  was  constrained  by 
Cossa,  whose  ascendency  over  him  was  absolute,  to  make 
his  way  across  the  Apennines  through  snow  and  ice  to 
Bologna,  where  he  arrived  on  the  Epiphany, p  and  died  on 
the  3rd  of  May  1410.  His  end  was  generally  explained 
by  the  ready  supposition  of  poison,  and  this  was  supposed 
by  many  to  have  been  administered  through  the  con¬ 
trivance  of  the  legate.*1 

1  Mon.  Sandion.  iv.  308  ;  Milm. 
v.  464;  Hefele,  vii.  3.  The  bull  was 
revoked  by  John  XXIII.  Bui.  v.  204. 
m  Th.  Niem,  iii.  50. 
n  Mon.  Sandion.  iv.  28,  62 ;  Th. 

Niem,  iii.  23 ;  Sozom.  Pistor.  in  Murat, 
xvi.  1193.  Muratori,  in  quoting  Sozo- 
men,  adds,  “  Si  cib  e  vero,  gran  tradi- 
mento  fece  costui  alia  chiesa.”  Annal. 

IX.  i.  65. 

0  Th.  Niem,  iii.  52 ;  Anton.  Petri, 

1003 ;  Gregorov.  vi.  596-7  See  in 


Rayn.  1409.  85,  Alexander’s  denuncia¬ 
tions  summoning  Ladislaus  to  answer 
for  his  conduct. 

P  Th.  Niem,  iii.  51 ;  Vita  Joh.  XXI 1 1 . 
in  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  355-8  ;  Cron,  di  Bo¬ 
logna,  in  Murat,  xviii.  598. 

1  See  Antonin.  476  (who  does  not 
charge  the  crime  on  Cossa) ;  Mon.  San¬ 
dion.  iv.  322  ;  Cron,  di  Bologna,  559  ; 
Hus,  Ep.  83  ;  Giesel.  II.  iv.  9.  Bp. 
Hefele  disbelieves  the  story  (vii.  5), 
which  seems  improbable. 


Chap.  VIII.  a. d.  1409-10. 


JOHN  XXIII. 


333 


On  the  1 6th  of  May — the  third  day  after  the  conclave 
had  been  formed — Cossa  was  chosen  as  pope  by  seven¬ 
teen  cardinals,  and  took  the  name  of  John  the  Twenty- 
third/  The  accounts  of  his  earlier  life  are  such  that 
we  can  hardly  conceive  how,  if  they  may  be  believed,  he 
should  have  been  able  to  gain  influence  as  an  ecclesiastic, 
and  eventually  to  attain  the  papal  chair  by  the  votes  of  his 
brother  cardinals ;  yet  all  contemporary  writers  agree  in 
the  substance  of  the  story,  and  the  very  blackest  parts  of 
it  were  brought  against  him  without  contradiction  at 
the  council  of  Constance.8  Born  of  a  noble  Neapolitan 
family,  Cossa  had  early  entered  into  the  ranks  of  the 
clergy  ;  but  his  clerical  profession  had  not  prevented  him 
from  engaging  in  the  piratical  warfare  between  Naples 
and  Hungary ;  and  in  this  stage  of  his  life  he  acquired 
a  habit,  which  afterwards  adhered  to  him,  of  waking  by 
night  and  sleeping  by  dayd  After  having  resided  for 
some  time  at  Bologna,  where  he  affected  the  character 
of  a  student,  he  was  made  archdeacon  of  that  city  by 
Boniface  IX., u  who  afterwards  transferred  him  to  Rome 
and  appointed  him  papal  chamberlain.  In  this  office 
Cossa  exercised  his  genius  in  devising  new  forms  of 
corruption  for  the  benefit  of  the  ecclesiastical  revenues. ”x 
To  him  is  ascribed  the  system  of  sending  out  preachers 
to  vend  indulgences  with  the  most  impudent  pretensions, 


f  Bekynton,  Epp.  243-4.  For  the 
exertions  of  Charles  Malatesta,  lord  of 
Rimini,  to  deprecate  a  new  election, 
see  Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  vii  1162-86. 

3  “Vir  in  temporalibus  quidem  mag- 
nus,  in  spiritualibusveronullusomnino 
et  ineptus.”  Leon.  Aret.  in  Mur.  xix. 
927 ;  see  Schrockh,  xxxi.  ^76 ;  Sism.  vi. 
153 ;  Milm.  v.  466.  Bp.  Hefele  reason¬ 
ably  reduces  the  charges  against  him, 
vii.  9-1 1. 

1  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  338-9. 
This  agrees  with  a  passage  of  Antony 
Petri,  who  tells  us  that  he  and  others 


were  unable  (a.d.  1409)  to  get  an  inter¬ 
view  with  Cossa  until  after  vespers. 
“  Causa  fuit  ista  :  Dominus  Cardinalis 
non  surrexit  usque  ad  meridiem  ;  post 
meridiem  audivitmissam ;  postmissam, 
voluit  se  radere.  Multa  essent  scri- 
benda  quse  demitto  in  calamo.”  1005. 
u  Th.  Niem,  1.  c.  340. 
x  lb.  340-4.  See  the  story  of  his  de¬ 
spoiling  and  putting  to  death  a  preacher 
who  was  returning  from  beyond  the 
Alps  with  a  large  collection  of  money. 
It>.  343  4- 


334 


JOHN  xxiir. 


Book  VIII. 


while  he  himself  was  notorious  for  enriching  himself  by 
simony  and  bribes/  In  1403  he  was  sent  back  to  Bo¬ 
logna  as  cardinal-legate — partly,  it  is  said,  with  a  view  of 
removing  him  from  the  neighbourhood  of  his  brother's 
wife,  with  whom  he  carried  on  a  scandalous  intercourse.2 

At  Bologna  he  established  a  despotic  and  tyrannical 
power.  The  people  were  ground  by  taxation,  monopolies, 
and  plunder/  licenses  were  sold  for  the  exercise  of 
infamous  occupations — of  usury,  keeping  of  gaming¬ 
houses,  prostitution. b  His  cruelty  towards  those  who 
offended  him  was  so  widely  exercised,  that  it  is  said  to 
have  visibly  thinned  the  population  of  the  city  ;c  his  lust 
was  so  inordinate,  that  within  the  first  year  of  his  legation 
two  hundred  maidens,  wives,  or  widows,  and  a  multitude 
of  consecrated  nuns,  are  said  to  have  fallen  victims  to  it.*1 
He  is  charged  with  having  bribed  the  cardinals  to  desert 
Gregory,  whose  arms  he  defaced  on  the  public  buildings 
of  Bologna  before  setting  out  for  the  council  of  Pisa;e 
and  in  that  council  he  took  a  prominent  part,  although, 
on  being  proposed  for  the  papacy,  he  found  it  expedient 
to  put  forward  Alexander,  as  one  whom  he  might  make 
his  tool,  and  who  was  not  likely  to  stand  long  in  his  way.f 
At  Bologna,  the  conclave  was  subject  to  the  legate’s 
control,  and  various  stories  are  told  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  he  carried  his  own  election,  by  the  use  of  bribery 
and  of  terror  ;  g  but  as,  in  the  course  of  the  later  proceed¬ 
ings  against  him,  no  charge  was  brought  on  this  point, 
these  stories  may  perhaps  be  safely  rejected/ 


y  Th.  Niem,  337. 

*  lb.  337,  346.  Boniface  eulogizes 
him  profusely  on  occasion  of  sending 
him  as  legate.  Rayn.  1403.  9. 

“  Th.  Niem,  1.  c.  349.  b  lb.  350. 
c  lb.  348.  d  lb.  339. 

e  Cron,  di  Bologna,  Murat,  xviii. 
593  ;  Dollinger,  ii.  296;  Hefele,  vii.  9. 
Gregory  styles  him  “iniquitatis  alum¬ 
nus  et  perditionis  filius  ”  in  his  mani¬ 


festo  of  Dec.  14,  1408. 

f  lb.  355  ;  De  Schism,  iii.  51. 

*  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  304, 
357-8  ;  Platina,  283.  “  In  cujus  elec- 

tione  multi  scandalizati  sunt,  quia  ut 
tyrannus  rexisse  Boloniam  et  vitae 
mundanae  deditus  dicebatur.”  Gobel. 
Pers.  330. 

h  Milm.  v.  469  ;  Hefele,  vii.  7.  For 
the  ceremonies  of  his  coronation  in  the 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1410-12.  CRUSADE  AGAINST  LADISLAUS.  335 


John  began  his  pontificate  by  promulgating  rules  for 
his  chancery  which  sanctioned  the  worst  of  the  existing 
corruptions,1  and  by  uttering  curses,  according  to  usage, 
against  his  rivals  Gregory  and  Benedict.11  The  growing 
power  of  Ladislaus  gave  just  ground  for  alarm;  and 
John  had  a  personal  cause  of  dislike  against  him  for 
having  condemned  two  of  the  pope’s  own  brothers  to 
death  as  pirates — from  the  execution  of  which  sentence 
they  had  with  difficulty  been  rescued  by  the  intercession 
of  Boniface  IX.1  John  declared  the  king  to  be  excom¬ 
municate  and  deposed,  and  proclaimed  a  crusade  against 
him  with  those  offers  of  indulgences  m  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  excited  a  commotion  in  Bohemia ;  and,  in  con¬ 
junction  with  Lewis  of  Anjou,  he  carried  the  „ 

.  —  1*1  .  ,  T  .  May  17,  1411. 

war  against  Ladislaus  into  southern  Italy. 

At  Rocca  Secca,  near  Ceperano,  the  pope  and  his  allies 
gained  a  victory  ;  but  Lewis  was  unable  to  follow  up 
this  advantage,  and  found  himself  obliged  to  return  to 
Provence,  from  which  he  made  no  further  attempt  on 
Italy.11 

After  a  time  John  found  it  expedient  to  enter  into 
negotiations  with  Ladislaus,  who  agreed  to 
abandon  Gregory  XII.,  but  exacted  heavy  un,I5’14I- 
conditions — that  the  pope  should  disallow  the  claim  of 
Lewis  of  Anjou  to  Naples,  and  that  of  Peter  of  Aragon 
to  Sicily ;  that  he  should  acknowledge  Ladislaus  as  king 
of  both  territories,  should  declare  him  standard-bearer 
of  the  Roman  church  and  empire,  and  should  pay  him  a 
large  sum  of  money.0  Gregory,  finding  himself  obliged 
to  leave  the  king’s  territories,  made  his  way  from  Gaeta 


church  of  St.  Petronius,  seeMonstrelet, 
ii.  129,  seqq.  ;  Matth.  de  Griffon,  in 
Murat,  xviii.  2x8  ;  Cron,  di  Bologn.  ib. 
543- 

*  Giesel.  II.  iv.  11 ;  cf.  as  to  his  prac¬ 
tices  Th.  Niem  de  Necess.  Reform,  i. 
27.  k  Rayn.  1411.  2. 


1  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  346-7. 
m  Mon.  Sandion.  iv.  608. 
n  Ib.  390-6;  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d. 
Hardt,  ii.  364-5  ;  Leon.  Aret.  in  Mur. 
xix.  927  ;  Antonin.  477  ;  Sism.  vi.  134. 

0  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii  367  ; 
Gregorov.  vi.  606-7. 


COUNCIL  AT  ROME. 


Book  VIII. 


/■> 

oo 


6 


by  sea — not  without  clanger  from  hostile  ships — to  Rimini, 

T .  where  he  found  a  refuse  with  Charles  Mala- 

Dec.  24,  1413.  0 

testa,  the  only  potentate  who  still  adhered 
to  him  ;  p  and  through  this  friend  he  carried  on  for  a 
time  negotiations  with  pope  John — each  of  the  rivals  em 
deavouring  to  persuade  the  other  to  resign  by  liberal 
offers  of  compensation. 

As  if  in  fulfilment  of  the  engagements  into  which  his 

predecessor  Alexander  had  entered,  John  affected  to 

summon  a  council  to  meet  at  Rome  in  1412,  with  a  view 

to  the  reform  of  the  church.  But  the  number  of  bishops 

who  attended  was  very  scanty,  and  the  only  result  seems 

to  have  been  a  condemnation  of  Wyclifs 

Feb.  13, 1413.  .  .  ...  .  ,  - 

writings,  which  were  burnt  on  the  steps  of 

St.  Peter’s.1,  The  council  broke  up  without  any  formal 

dissolution,  in  consequence  of  the  troubles  in  which 

the  pope  was  involved.3 

April  11,  At  Rome  John  had  been  received  with 
H11*  acclamations  and  festive  displays  but  he 
soon  made  himself  detested  by  the  heaviness  of  the 


v  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  368. 
Leonard  of  Arezzo,  who  accompanied 
him,  praises  Malatesta  very  highly 
(926) ;  and  the  monk  of  St.  Denys 
styles  him  “  litteratus  et  facundus,  et 
summe  in  rethorica  expertus.”  iv.  218. 

*  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  361. 

*  Ant.  Petri,  1033 ;  Mansi,  xxvii. 
505  ;  Hefele,  vii  17-18. 

8  Bekynton,  Ep.  245  ;  Hefele,  vii. 
18.  At  Constance  it  was  charged 
against  John  that  the  Roman  council 
reproved  him  for  many  of  his  faults, 
but  that  he  did  not  amend.  (Art.  28, 
in  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  200.)  He  refers  to 
this  council  in  his  summons  for  that  of 
Constance  (Mansi,  xxvii.  537).  There 
is  a  story  that,  w'hen  the  pope  had 
taken  his  seat,  an  owl  came  forth  from 
some  hiding-place  with  a  screech, 
perched  on  a  beam  opposite  to  him,  and 


remained  there  staring  at  him.  A  whis¬ 
per  ran  among  the  cardinais — “  E11  in 
specie  bubonis  Spiiitus  adest !  ” — and 
there  was  general  laughter,  until  the 
pope  in  confusion  broke  up  the  meet¬ 
ing.  At  the  second  session  the  owl 
appeared  again,  and  kept  his  place 
until  he  was  driven  from  it,  and  was 
killed  with  clubs.  (Nic.  Clemang. 
super  materia  Cone.  Generalis,  Opera, 
p.  75.)  But  this  story  seems  to  have 
grown  out  of  one  told  by  Theodoric  of 
Niem — that  an  owl  appeared  as  the 
pope  was  celebrating  vespers  on  Whit¬ 
sunday,  at  the  beginning  of  the  hymn, 
‘  Veni  Creator  Spiritus,’  and  that  this 
was  regarded  as  an  omen.  Vita  Joh. 
p.  375  ;  cf.  Lenfant,  Cone,  de  Pise,  ii. 
1 15;  Neand.  ix.  131  ;  Hefele,  vii.  18. 

1  Ant.  Petri,  1124. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1410-13. 


S1G1SMUND. 


337 


taxation  which  he  imposed.  The  richer  citizens  were 
drained  of  their  money ;  officials  of  all  kinds  were  com¬ 
pelled  to  pay  largely  for  their  places  ;  a  rate  was  levied 
on  trades  and  mechanical  occupations ;  the  coin  was 
debased  ;  the  duties  on  wine  were  increased  to  such  a 
degree  that  the  growers  found  themselves  driven  from 
the  Roman  market.11  On  this  account,  and  because 
Ladislaus  did  not  support  the  pope  in  an  attempt  to 
extort  a  second  payment  of  fees  from  prelates  and  others 
who  had  held  office  under  Gregory,  a  fresh  rupture  took 
place.51  The  king  got  posession  of  Rome 

.  .  1  -1  -r  1  n  i  i7~  1  i  June  HH- 

by  surprise,  while  John  lied  to  Viterbo  and 
thence  to  Florence  and  Bologna.  The  palaces  of  the 
pope  and  cardinals  were  plundered  ;  many  of  the 
churches  were  turned  into  stablest  The  castle  of  St. 
Angelo,  after  having  held  out  for  some  time,  was  treache¬ 
rously  surrendered ;  and  Ladislaus  overran  the  whole 
country  as  far  as  Siena.2 

In  the  distress  to  which  he  was  now  reduced,  John 

found  himself  obliged  to  turn,  as  his  only  resource,  to 

Sigismund,  the  emperor-elect.  At  the  death  of  Rupert, 

in  May  1410,  it  had  seemed  as  if  the  empire,  like  the 

church,  were  to  be  distracted  between  three  claimants  ; 

for,  while  some  of  the  electors  wished  to  bring  forward 

the  deposed  Wenceslaus  again,  one  party  ciiose  his 

brother,  king  Sigismund  of  Hungary,  while  another 

party  chose  Jobst  or  Jodocus,  marquis  of  Moravia.3,  But 

Jodocus,  who  is  said  to  have  been  ninety  years  old,  was 

speedily  removed  by  death, b  and  Sigismund  _  , 

1  .  \  ,  J r  .  ’  .  .  °  .  r  July  21, 1411. 

received  the  votes  of  those  who  had  betore 

stood  aloof  from  him — among  others  that  of  Wences- 


u  Vita  Joh.  370,  375.  x  Tb.  374-6. 
y  Eberhard  Windeck  says  this  even 
of  St.  Peter’s.  Mencken,  i.  1091. 

z  Ant.  Petri,  1035  ;  Th.  Niem,  Vita 
Job.  c.  35  ;  Matth.  de  Gritfon.  in  Murat. 

VOL.  VII. 


xviii.  222  ;  Cron,  di  Bologn.  ib.  603  ; 
Antonin.  477  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  615-17. 

“  Gobel.  Pers.  331  ;  Aschbach,  ‘  Kai¬ 
ser  Sigmund,’  i.  283,  292-3 ;  Palacky, 

III.  i.  259.  b  Murat.  IX.  i.  74. 


22 


33§ 


SIGISMUND  KING  OF  THE  ROMANS. 


Rook  VIII. 


laus  himself,  with  whom  he  was  formally  reconciled.0  For 
a  time  Sigismund’s  energies  were  chiefly  occupied  by  a 
war  with  the  Venetians  for  the  possession  of  Dalmatia; 
but  a  truce  of  five  years,  concluded  in  1413,  set  him  free 
to  attend  to  the  affairs  of  the  empire  and  of  the  church.'1 
Sigismund  was  the  most  powerful  emperor  since  the  days 
of  Frederick  II.,  and  at  this  time  his  influence  was  the 
stronger  because  France  and  England  were  about  to  re¬ 
new  their  great  struggle,  and  France,  in  addition  to  its 
dangers  from  the  foreign  enemy,  was  a  prey  to  the 
bloody  feuds  of  the  Burgundian  and  Orleanist  factions.® 
The  emperor’s  noble  presence,  his  accomplishments  and 
knightly  deportment,  his  love  of  splendour  and  mag¬ 
nificence  (although  this  was  continually  restrained  by 
pecuniary  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  imprudence  of  his 
youth),  procured  him  general  popularity.  The  faults  of  his 
earlier  days — among  which  faithlessness,  harshness,  and 
excessive  love  of  pleasure  are  noted — appeared  to  have 
been  abandoned  as  the  great  dignity  which  he  had 
attained  brought  with  it  a  deep  feeling  of  duty  and  re¬ 
sponsibility.1  Most  especially  he  was  desirous  to  heal 
the  schism  of  the  church.  As  king  of  Hungary,  he  had 
acknowledged  John,  and  at  his  election  to  the  empire 
the  archbishop  of  Mentz  had  exacted  from  him  an  oath 
that  he  would  not  accept  the  crown  from  any  other  pope 
than  John  or  a  successor  of  the  same  line.g  With  re¬ 
gard  to  Ladislaus,  Sigismund’s  interest  was  one  with  that 


c  Gobel.  Pers.  1.  c.  ;  Andr.  Ratisb.  in 
Pez.  IV.  iii.  622  ;  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d. 
Hardt,  ii.  375;  Palacky,  III.  i.  261; 
Aschbach,  i.  304-7.  John,  in  a  letter  to 
Sigismund,  takes  credit  for  having  fa¬ 
voured  his  election.  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  260. 

d  Th.  Niem.  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  378; 
Aschbach,  i.  349. 

e  As  the  house  of  Purgundy  used  the 
St.  Andrew’s  cross,  we  find  that,  when 
the  Burgundians  were  in  the  ascendant, 


that  form  was  substituted  in  crucifixes 
for  the  rectangular  cross  of  France,  and 
some  priests  followed  the  same  pattern 
in  making  the  sign  of  the  cross  at  bap¬ 
tism  and  in  the  mass.  J uv.  des  Ursins, 
232,  236. 

f  Leon.  Aret.  in  Murat,  xix.  936; 
Schmidt,  iv.  95  ;  Sism.  vi.  143  ;  Aschb. 
i.  416-18. 

e  Schrockh,  xxxi.  391 ;  Schmidt,  iv. 
85. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.b.  1413.  A  COUNCIL  PROJECTED. 


339 


of  John  ;  for  Ladislaus,  in  addition  to  the  ambitious  pro¬ 
jects  which  he  had  formed  as  to  Italy,  directly  claimed 
Sigismund’s  kingdom  of  Hungary,  and  even  had  views 
on  the  imperial  dignity.11 

With  a  view  to  the  reunion  of  the  church,  Sigismund 
urged  on  John  the  necessity  of  a  general  council.  If 
such  an  assembly  were  to  meet,  the  question  as  to  the 
place  of  its  meeting  was  important  for  John’s  interest. 
He  himself  told  his  secretary,  Leonard  of  Arezzo,  that  it 
must  not  be  in  any  place  where  the  emperor  was  too 
powerful ;  that,  while  professing  to  give  full  powers  to 
the  commissioners  whom  he  was  about  to  send  to 
Sigismund,  he  intended  secretly  to  limit  their  choice  to 
certain  Italian  cities  :  but  at  taking  leave  of  the  commis¬ 
sioners,  acting  on  a  sudden  impulse,  he  professed  entire 
confidence  in  them,  and  destroyed  the  list  of  places.1  On 
finding  that  they  had  agreed  to  fix  on  Constance,  a  town 
beyond  the  Alps  and  within  the  imperial  dominions,  he 
burst  out  into  bitter  reproaches  against  them,  and  cursed 
his  own  folly  in  having  departed  from  his  first  resolu- 
tion.k  At  Lodi  he  had  a  meeting  with  the  Nov.— Dec. 
emperor,  and  urged  on  him  that  the  council  I4I3- 
should  be  held  in  some  city  of  Lombardy ;  but  Sigis¬ 
mund,  who  had  already  issued  his  summons,  was  not  to 
be  diverted  from  his  purpose.  The  plea  that  the  patri¬ 
archs  and  cardinals  would  be  unwilling  to  cross  the  Alps 
was  met  by  the  answer  that  the  ecclesiastical  electors  of 
the  empire  would  be  equally  unwilling  to  do  so  in  the 
opposite  direction.1 


h  Schmidt,  iv.  96.  See  above,  p.  241. 
1  Leon.  Aretin.  in  Murat,  xix.  928  ; 
Palacky,  Documenta,  513;  Theod. 
Vrie,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  105. 

k  Leon.  Aret.  1.  c.  ;  Palacky,  Doc. 
516-17. 

1  Th.  Niem,  i.  37 ;  Ulr.  Reichenthal, 
in  Marmor,  15  »  Gobel  Pers.331.  The 
advantages  of  Constance  are  set  forth 


by  Ulrich  of  Reichenthal,  in  Marmor, 
13-14.  The  account  of  the  council  by 
Ulrich,  who  was  an  eye-witness,  was 
published  in  1483  and  in  1534.  A  fac¬ 
simile  of  the  best  MS.,  with  its  illus¬ 
trations,  was  published  in  1870  ;  but 
I  have  been  obliged  to  content  myself 
with  so  much  of  the  book  as  is  con¬ 
tained  in  Marmor’s  ‘  Concil  zu  Con- 


340 


COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE  SUMMONED.  Book  VIII. 


Sigismund,  in  respectful  terms,  exhorted  the  pope  to 
amend  the  courses  by  which  he  had  scandalized  Chris¬ 
tendom,  especially  as  to  simony ;  and  John  promised 
compliance.  The  emperor  accompanied  him  as  far  as 
Cremona  on  his  return  towards  Bologna.1"  The  French 
reformers,  finding  that  the  influence  of  their  own  nation 
had  been  insufficient  to  heal  the  schbm,  had  now  turned 
their  hopes  towards  the  emperor,  and  Gerson  had  urged 
the  assembling  of  a  council  on  him  as  a  duty  of  his 
office  which  could  not  be  neglected  without  mortal  sin." 
In  accordance  with  this  view,  Sigismund,  as  temporal 
head  of  Christendom,  had  sent  forth  his 
citation  for  a  general  council,  while  John,  as 
pope,  was  persuaded  to  do  the  like.  The  time  fixed 
in  both  documents,  as  if  by  independent 
authority,  was  the  first  of  November  in  the 
following  year.0  The  emperor  invited  both  Gregory 
XII.  and  Benedict  to  attend,  with  their  adherents,  but 
refrained  from  giving  to  either  of  them  the  title  of  pope. 

John  was  already  committed  to  the  council,  when  he 
was  informed  that  Ladislaus,  against  whom  he  was  en¬ 
deavouring  to  enlist  troops,  had  suddenly  died  at 
Naples. p  By  this  event  his  position  was  rendered  easier, 


Oct.  31. 


Dec.  9. 


stanz’  (Const.  1858),  and  with  quota¬ 
tions  in  other  works.  Another  German 
chronicler  of  the  council,  Dacher,  al¬ 
though  used  by  V.  d.  Hardt,  has  not 
been  published.  See  notes  on  Seyfrid, 
6-7. 

m  Leon.  Aret.  in  Murat,  xix.  928  ; 
V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  204.  See,  as  to  the 
wretched  state  to  which  the  two  great 
potentates  found  the  north  of  Italy  re¬ 
duced  by  war,  etc.,  Leonard  Aret.  1.  c. 
Gabrino  Fondolo,  who  had  made  him¬ 
self  tyrant  of  Cremona,  and  was  even¬ 
tually  beheaded  at  Milan,  professed  on 
the  scaffold  to  feel  no  remorse  for  any¬ 
thing  except  that,  when  showing  the 
valley  of  the  Po  to  the  pope  and  the 


emperor  from  the  lofty  bell-tower  of 
his  city,  he  had  not  given  way  to  an 
impulse  which  he  felt  to  throw  them 
both  down.  Sism.  vi.  151. 

n  “  Sub  poena  peccati  mortalis  et 
gehennse  perpetuse  ”  (t.  ii.  187).  Theo- 
doric  of  Niem  argues  the  emperor’s 
power  to  correct  the  disorders  of  the 
papacy — referring  to  the  acts  of  Otho  I., 
etc.  De  Schism,  iii.  7,  9-10.  So  Ger¬ 
son  (?),  i.  178,  etc. 

0  Mansi,  xxviii.  537  ;  V.  d.  Hardt, 
vi.  5,  seqq.  ;  Palacky,  Docum.  515  ; 
Bekynton,  No.  246. 

p  See  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii. 
388  ;  Leon.  Aret.  929 ;  Antonin.  479  : 
Monstrel.  iii.  257  ;  Laonic.  Chalcocon 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  141314-  JOHN  XXIII. 


341 


and  less  dependent  on  the  alliance  of  Sigismund,  so 
that  he  entertained  the  idea  of  taking  up  his  abode  at 
Rome  instead  of  fulfilling  his  promise  to  appear  at  Con¬ 
stance.  Some  of  his  friends  endeavoured  to  alarm  him  by- 
telling  him  that,  if  he  should  go  to  Constance  as  pope,  he 
would  return  as  a  private  man.  But  the  cardinals,  fear¬ 
ing  lest  he  should  plunge  into  hazardous  schemes  for  re¬ 
covering  the  whole  of  the  church’s  territory,  insisted  on  the 
fulfilment  of  his  promise,  and  he  unwillingly  set 
forth  from  Bologna. q  In  passing  through  the 
Tyrol,  he  had  an  interview  with  duke  Frederick  of  Austria,1- 
whom  he  knew  to  be  hostile  to  Sigismund ;  and  it  was 
agreed  that  in  case  of  necessity  the  pope  might  reckon 
on  the  duke’s  protection.  As  John  was  descending  the 
Arlberg  he  was  upset  in  the  snow,  and  vented  loud  curses 
on  his  own  folly  in  having  set  out  on  such  an  expedition ; 8 
and  when  he  arrived  in  sight  of  Constance,  its  appearance 
drew  from  him  the  exclamation,  “  So  are  foxes  caught.”  1 
Almost  from  the  beginning  of  the  schism  the  dies  for 
a  reform  of  the  church  had  been  loud  and  frequent. 
Nicolas  of  Clemanges,  then  rector  of  the  university  of 
Paris,  had  led  the  way  in  1394  by  a  forcible  appeal  to 
the  king  of  France  ;u  and  about  1401  appeared  a  tract 
‘  Of  the  Corrupt  State  of  the  Church,’  which  has  been 
usually,  although  perhaps  wrongly,  ascribed  to  him.x  In 


dylas,  1.  v.  p.  142  ;  Raynald.  1414.  6  ; 
Giannone,  iv.  177;  Gregorov.  vi.  623-9; 
Mansi  (n.  on  Raynald.)  puts  the  event 
on  Aug.  3  ;  others  say  Aug.  6,  or  14. 
Aschbach,  ii.  9. 

r  Frederick,  by  a  partition  with  other 
princes  of  his  Mouse,  had  got  the  Tyrol 
and  Vorarl'oerg.  See  l'Art  de  Verif., 
xvii.  54  ;  Coxe,  i.  223. 

8  “Jaceo  hie  in  nomine  diaboli.” 
Marmor,  18. 

1  lb.  His  entry  into  Constance  is 
described  at  p.  19. 

u  Ep.  1.  See  Schrockh,  xxxi.  238, 


39s- 

x  SeeGiesel.  II.  iii.  10S.  It  is  printed 
among  the  works  of  Nicolas,  with  the 
title  ‘  De  Corrupto  Eccleske  Statu,’  but 
more  correctly  (and  with  a  different 
numbering  of  the  chapters)  by  Von  der 
Hardt,  I.  iii.  seqq.,  where  it  is  entitled 
*  De  Ruina  Ecclesiae.’  See  Schrockh, 
xxxi.  402-7.  C.  Schmidt,  in  Herzog, 
art.  Clemanges,  holds  with  Miintz 
that  it  is  not  by  Nicolas,  but  by  some 
other  member  of  the  university  of 
Paris,  which  alone  escapes  the  writer’s 
censures  on  the  clergy.  Schwab, 


342 


WRITINGS  ON  THE 


Book  VIII. 


this  the  condition  of  things  is  painted  in  very  dark,  and  per¬ 
haps  somewhat  exaggerated,  colours.  The  writer  enlarges 
on  the  decay  of  the  church  from  the  simplicity  of  its 
primitive  days.y  The  three  great  vices  of  the  clergy  he 
declares  to  be  luxury,  pride,  and  greed ; 2  vices  which 
prevail  among  every  class  from  the  pope  downwards. 
He  censures  the  popes  for  their  usurpation  of  patronage, 
for  the  unworthy  bestowal  of  it  on  ignorant  and  useless 
men,a  whereby  the  whole  order  of  clergy  had  fallen 
into  contempt,  and  for  the  exactions  by  which  they 
oppressed  the  clergy. b  He  is  severe  on  the  corruptions 
of  the  Roman  court ; c  on  the  pride  of  cardinals,  their 
monstrous  pluralities,  their  simony  and  venality,  their 
unedifying  manner  of  life.d  Bishops  neglect  their  dio¬ 
ceses  and  hang  about  the  courts  of  princes,  under  the 
false  pretence  of  being  needed  as  their  counsellors;6  they 
are  intent  on  getting  money  by  discreditable  means/  and 
spend  their  time  in  frivolous  and  indecent  amusements.8 
Canons  imitate  in  their  degree  the  faults  of  the  bishops.h 
Monks  are  so  much  worse  than  others  as  by  their  pro¬ 
fession  they  ought  to  be  better ; 1  and  mendicants  vitiate 
the  good  deeds  which  they  claim  by  their  unseemly 
boasting  of  them,  so  that  they  are  the  Pharisees  of  the 
church,  and  our  Lord’s  condemnations  of  the  Jewish 
Pharisees  are  applicable  to  them.k  In  conclusion  the 
writer  warns  of  dangers  which  are  at  hand,  and  declares 
that  the  only  safety  for  the  church  is  in  humiliation  and 


however,  would  restore  it  to  Nicolas. 
494- 

y  Cc.  i-2.  1  C.  3.  “  Cc.  5-7,  18. 

b  Abbots  and  other  prelates  dying 
in  debt  to  the  papal  treasury  had  been 
deprived  of  Christian  burial.  C.  8. 
c  Cc.  II-I2. 

11  Cc.  13-17.  Cf.  De  Modis  Un.  et 
Ref.  Eccl.  ap  Gerson,  ii.  174-5. 
e  Cc.  19,  20.  1  Cc.  20-7.  s  C.  28. 

h  lie  styles  them,  among  other 


things,  “indoctos,  Simoniacos,  cupidos, 
ambitiosos,  temulos,  obtrectatores,  sum 
vita;  negligentes,  aliens;  curiosos  scru- 
tatores  ac  reprehensores  ;  ebriosos,  in- 
continentissimos  .  .  .  vaniloquos,  gar- 
rulos,  tempus  in  fabulis  et  nugis  teren- 
tes ;  et  propterea  ...  in  cura  ventris 
et  gula;,  in  carnis  voluptatibus  hauri- 
endis,  sum  vita;  felicitatem,  ut  porci 
Epicurei,  constituunt.”  C.  29. 

1  C.  32.  k  Cc.  33-5. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1401-10.  NECESSITY  OF  REFORM. 


343 


amendment.1  Peter  d’Ailly,  now  cardinal  and  arch¬ 
bishop  of  Cambray,  agreed  with  other  writers  in  desiring 
reform,  but  saw  greater  practical  hindrances  in  the 
way;  and  in  1410  he  put  forth  a  tract  4  Of  the  Difficulty 
of  Reformation  in  a  General  Council,’111  urging  the 
vacancy  of  the  empire,  the  disorganized  condition  of  the 
church,  and  the  danger  that  the  cardinals  might  not 
agree  in  an  election,  or  might  increase  the  existing 
perplexities.  To  this  a  reply  was  made  in  a  treatise 
‘On  the  Ways  of  Uniting  and  Reforming  the  Church  in  a 
General  Council,’  which  has  been  commonly  (but  perhaps 
incorrectly)  attributed  to  Gerson.n  The  writer  is  strongly 
opposed  to  the  assumptions  and  to  the  corruptions 
of  the  papacy.  He  considers  that  the  necessity  of  the 
case  is  so  strong  as  to  overpower  all  ordinary  difficulties. 
The  pope,  he  says,  is  not  above  the  gospel;  he  received 
his  office  for  the  general  good,  and  for  the  general 
good  he  ought  to  resign  it,  if  necessary.0  The  popes 
should  be  urged  to  cession  ;  and  if  this  cannot  be 
obtained,  it  would  be  legitimate  to  pursue  the  great  object 
even  by  the  use  of  fraud,  violence,  bribery,  imprison¬ 
ment,  and  death,  p  In  such  a  question  all  Christians, 


1  Cc.  42-6. 

m  Printed  in  Gerson’s  works,  ii.  867, 
seqq.  To  D’Ailly  has  also  been  ascribed 
the  tract  *  De  Necessitate  Reforma- 
tionis,’  written  some  years  later  (in  V. 
d.  Hardt,  I.  vii.,  or  Gerson,  ii.  895, 
seqq.) ;  but  it  is  by  a  German,  probably 
Theodoric  of  Niem.  See  V.  d.  Hardt’s 
Introduction ;  Schwab,  481-2. 

a  V.  d.  Hardt,  I.  v. ;  or  in  Gerson,  ii. 
161,  seqq.  See  Schwab,  470,  491,  who 
points  out  differences  of  principle  from 
Gerson  as  to  doctrine  and  morals,  and 
considers  it  to  be  probably  the  work  of 
a  Frenchman  who  had  lived  in  Italy, 
and  knew  the  curia  by  personal  obser¬ 
vation.  He  suggests  Andrew,  abbot  of 
Rendufe,  in  the  Portuguese  diocese 


of  Braga,  as  the  probable  author. 

0  Ap.  Gerson,  168. 

P  “Quod  si  nec  isto  modo  poterit 
ecclesia  prohcere,  tunc  dolis,  fraudibus. 
arrnis,  violentia,  potentia,  promissioni- 
bus,  donis  et  pecuniis,  tandem  carceri- 
bus,  mortibus,  convenit  sanctissimani 
unionem  ecclesise  et  conjunctionem 
quomodolibet  procurare.”  He  grounds 
this  on  the  authority  of  Cicero  (De 
Offic.  iii.  5) — “Hocspectant  leges,  hoc 
volunt,  incolumem  esse  civium  conjunc¬ 
tionem  ;  quam  qui  dirimunt,  mortibus, 
exilio,  vinculis  et  damnis  coerceanc 
secundum  leges.”  (Gerson,  col.  170.) 
[For  the  last  three  words  the  original 
reads  only  coercent.] 


344 


MEETING  OF  THE 


Book  VIII. 


even  to  the  lowest  in  station,  are  interested ;  all,  and 
more  especially  those  in  high  authority,  are  entitled  to 
interfered  The  emperor,  as  general  advocate  of  the 
church,  ought  to  call  a  general  council, r  and  a  new  pope 
ought  to  be  chosen,  who  must  neither  be  one  of  the  exist¬ 
ing  claimants,  nor  a  member  of  the  college  of  cardinals; 
for  cardinals  ought,  in  the  writer’s  opinion,  to  be  always 
regarded  as  ineligible  on  account  of  the  danger  of  collu¬ 
sion,  which  might  lead  to  the  choice  of  unsuitable  men.6 
And  the  work  concludes  with  suggesting  some  reforms 
which  the  future  council  ought  to  take  in  hand.1 

The  influence  of  the  school  to  which  these  writers 
belonged  had  been  apprehended  by  John,  and  he  had 
endeavoured  to  gain  them  by  bestowing  large  privileges 
and  other  benefits  on  the  university  of  Paris,  and  by 
raising  Peter  d’Ailly,  as  one  of  its  most  eminent  mem¬ 
bers,  to  the  dignity  of  cardinal.11 

The  eyes  of  all  Christendom  were  now  turned  with 
intense  interest  to  the  expected  council.  It  was  not 
merely  to  decide  between  the  claims  of  rival  popes,  but 
was  to  settle  the  question  whether  a  pope  or  a  general 
council  were  the  highest  authority  in  the  church.  As 
the  time  of  meeting  drew  near,  multitudes  of  every  class 
poured  into  Constance,  and  the  arrivals  continued  for 
some  months  after  the  opening  of  the  council.31  Of  the 
ecclesiastical  members,  some  appeared  in  plain  and 
simple  style,  and  others  in  pomp  which  displayed  the 
union  of  secular  wealth  with  ecclesiastical  dignity. 


Q  Gerson,  cols.  163,  171-2,  etc. 
r  lb.  187,  190,  etc. 

*  lb.  195.  1  lb.  200-1. 

u  Th.  Niem  de  Necess.  Reform,  c. 
26  (V.  d.  Hardt,  i.) ;  Neand.  ix.  129. 
At  the  same  time  (June  1411)  other 
eminent  men,  as  Zabarella  and  Fillastre, 
were  made  cardinals,  seemingly  with 
a  view  to  the  pope’s  reputation.  Bp. 
liallam,  of  Salisbury,  is  also  commonly 


reckoned  among  them  ;  but  this  seems 
inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  the  title 
is  never  given  to  him  in  the  documents 
of  the  council  of  Constance.  See  Cia- 
con.  ii.  800-4  :  Lcnf.,  Cone,  de  Pise,  ii. 
71  ;  Schwab,  466. 

x  Thus  the  Parisian  deputation  ar¬ 
rived  on  Feb.  18,  1415.  Lenf.  Cone, 
de  Const,  i.  112. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1414.  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


345 


Among  the  latter  class  John  of  Nassau,  the  primate 
of  Germany,  distinguished  himself  by  entering  the  city 
in  complete  armour,  attended  by  a  splendid  train  of  352 
men,  with  700  horses. y  The  whole  number  of  eccle¬ 
siastics  present,  with  their  attendants,  is  reckoned  at 
18,000.  During  the  sittings  of  the  council  there  were 
usually  50,000  strangers  within  the  walls  of  Constance ; 
sometimes  twice  that  number,  with  30,000  horses.2 
Among  those  who  were  attracted  to  the  great  ecclesi¬ 
astical  assembly  by  the  hope  of  gain  were  persons  of  all 
sorts — merchants  and  traders,  lawyers  in  great  numbers 
and  in  all  their  varieties, a  artists  and  craftsmen,  players, 
jugglers,  and  musicians  to  the  number  of  1700,  and  no 
less  than  700  avowed  prostitutes.15 

John  had  obtained  from  the  magistrates  of  Constance 
certain  privileges  as  to  jurisdiction.  He  ordered  the 
arms  of  his  rival  Gregory  to  be  torn  down  from  the 
lodgings  of  Gregory’s  representative,  the  cardinal  of 
Ragusa ;  and  when  this  act  was  afterwards  called  in 
question,  the  majority  of  the  council  justified  it  on  the 
ground  that  such  a  display  ought  not  to  have  been  made 
within  the  territories  where  John  was  acknowledged,  nor 
unless  Gregory  himself  were  present.0 


y  This  was  “in  profesto  octavarum 
Epiphanise”  (1415).  Mart.  Thes.  ii. 
16x1. 

z  Leon.  Aret.  in  Murat,  xix.  929 ; 
Hefele,  vii.  91. 

s  Bernard  Baptise,  a  Gascon  abbot, 
in  a  sermon  before  the  council  on  the 
nth  Sunday  after  Trinity,  1417,  speaks 
of  one  lawyer  as  having  made  1000 
florins  that  year.  V.  d.  Hardt,  i. 
8S6. 

b  Ulr.  v.  Reichenthal  in  Aschbach 
42,  who  adds,  “On  die  heimlichen,  die 
lass  ich  bleiberi.”  Cf.  G.  Dacher,  in 
V.  d.  Hardt,  v.  50.  Fistenport,  in 
Hahn,  ‘  Miscellanea,’  i.  401,  says  450 
“  publicse  meretrices,”  and  320  “  jocula- 


tores  et  fistulatores,”  while  a  document 
in  V.  d.  Hardt,  v.  51,  says  “xvc  [1500] 
meretrices  vagabundae.”  Hus  reports 
the  Swabians  as  saying,  “  Constantiam 
triginta  annis  purgari  non  posse  pec- 
catis  quae  concilium  in  ea  urbe  perpe- 
traverit.”  (Ep.  85.)  See  the  ‘  Publica 
Conquestio '  of  a  doctor  named  Theo¬ 
bald,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  908-9.  In  V. 
d.  Hardt,  iv.  1017,  seqq.,  are  some 
regulations  of  the  council  as  to  lodg¬ 
ings,  provisions,  etc.,  which  give 
curious  hints  as  to  prices  and  habits. 
Cf.  v.  51-2. 

c  Mansi,  xxvii.  532  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv. 
2i.  Gregory  had  refused  to  attend  on 
the  ground  that  the  council  had  been 


346  OPENING  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE.  Book  VIII. 

On  the  5th  of  November  the  council  was  opened  with 
a  solemn  service  ;  and  on  the  16th  the  first  general 
session  was  held.d  Among  the  members  of  the  council 
(of  whom,  however,  many  did  not  arrive  until  later) 
were  the  titular  patriarchs  of  Constantinople,  Antioch, 
and  Jerusalem,®  twenty-two  cardinals,  twenty  archbishops, 
nearly  a  hundred  bishops  and  thirty-three  titular  bishops, 
a  hundred  and  twenty-four  abbots,  and  two  hundred  and 
fifty  doctors,  with  many  secular  princes  or  representatives 
of  princes.1 

Of  the  Italian  prelates,  the  most  active  in  the  council 
was  Zabarella,  cardinal-archbishop  of  Florence  ;g  of  those 
from  the  northern  kingdoms,  the  leaders  were  Peter 
d’Ailly  and  the  bishop  of  Salisbury,  Robert  Hallam, 
who  had  already  borne  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  council 
of  Pisa. 

The  treasures  which  John  had  at  his  disposal  enabled 
him  to  exercise  much  influence.  He  contrived,  by 
underhand  movements,  to  divide  the  interests  of  the 
various  nations,  and  to  distract  them  from  an  agreement 
in  action ;  and  it  is  said  that  he  made  himself  master  of 
secrets  through  informants  who  resorted  to  him  by  night, 
and  whom  he  was  accustomed  to  absolve  formally  from 
the  guilt  of  perjury  which  they  incurred  by  their  revela¬ 
tions.11 

Very  early  in  the  proceedings  of  the  council  there 
were  indications  of  a  spirit  which  it  was  impossible  for 
John  to  misinterpret.  Thus,  when  it  was  proposed  by 
some  Italians,  on  the  7th  of  December,  that  the  council 
of  Pisa  should  be  confirmed — a  step  by  which  the  new 

summoned  by  an  intruder.  Rayn.  f  See  the  lists  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  V.  ii. 
7414.  4.  8,  seqq.  ;  Lenf.  ii.  365,  seqq., 

d  V.  d.  Hardt.  iv.  16.  p  His  tract  ‘  De  Schismatibus  au- 

e  Simon  de  Cramault  is  also  in  the  thoritate  Imperatoris  tollendis '  is  m 
list,  but  is  styled  cardinal  of  Reims,  Scbard,  ‘Syntagma,’  235,  seqq. 
without  any  reference  to  his  title  of  h  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  380-1, 
Alexandrian  patriarch.  389. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1414.  ARRIVAL  OF  SIGISMUND. 


347 


assembly  would  have  bound  itself  to  the  pope  of  the  line 
there  established — it  was  resolved,  in  opposition  to  this 
proposal,  that  the  council  should  be  regarded  as  a  con¬ 
tinuation  of  that  of  Pisa,  and  therefore  could  not  confirm 
its  acts  ;l  and  it  was  evident  that  the  intention  was  not 
to  decide  between  the  rival  claimants  of  the  papacy,  but 
to  persuade  all  three  to  a  cession  of  their  claims,  and  to 
elect  a  new  pope  to  the  vacant  office.k 

On  the  morning  of  Christmas-day,  before  dawn, 
Sigismund,  who  had  lately  received  the  German  crown 
at  Aix-la-Chapelle,1  arrived  at  Constance,  having  crossed 
the  lake  in  a  boat :  and  forthwith  he  proceeded  to  assist 
at  a  solemn  mass  which  was  celebrated  by  the  pope. 
Habited  in  a  dalmatic,  and  with  the  crown  on  his  head, 
he  read  (according  to  the  privilege  of  his  office)™  the 
gospel  of  the  decree  which  went  out  from  Caesar  Augus¬ 
tus  ;  and  the  words  were  heard  as  betokening  an  asser¬ 
tion  of  the  imperial  superiority  over  the  papacy.  John 
put  into  his  hand  a  sword  for  the  defence  of  the  church  : 
and  the  emperor  swore  that  he  would  always  labour  for 
that  end  to  the  utmost  of  his  power.11  But,  although 
this  engagement  was  sincerely  made,  Sigismund  was 
firmly  resolved  to  pursue  his  own  policy,  instead  of 
lending  himself  to  the  pope’s  schemes ;  and  it  was  in 
vain  that  John,  knowing  the  necessities  by  which  he  was 
encumbered  in  the  attempt  to  maintain  the  state  of  im¬ 
perial  dignity,  endeavoured  to  propitiate  him  by  presents 
or  loans  of  money.0 

Three  days  later,  cardinal  d’Ailly  preached  Dec.  28. 
before  the  emperor,  from  the  text,  “  There  shall  be 


*  Mansi,  xxvi.  543  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  II. 
viii.  193-6  ;  Giesel.  II.  iv.  23  ;  Schwab, 
500  ;  Hefele,  vii.  72-3. 
k  Mansi,  xxvii.  523. 

1  Nov.  8.  He  was  crowned  by  Theo- 
dcric  de  Morse,  who  had  been  elected. 


but  not  yet  consecrated,  as  archbishop 
of  Cologne.  Gobel.  Pers.  339  ;  Aschb. 
i.  410.  m  See  pp.  168,  169. 

n  Th.  Vrie,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  154-5 
ib.  iv.  28 ;  U.  v.  Reichenth.  in  Mar- 
nior,  38-9.  0  Milm.  vi.  18. 


348 


COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


Look  VIII. 


signs  in  the  sun,  and  in  the  moon,  and  in  the  stars.” 
The  sun  he  interprets  as  representing  the  papacy,  the 
moon  as  the  imperial  power,  the  stars  as  the  various 
estates  of  the  church.  There  can,  he  holds,  neither 
be  real  reform  without  union,  nor  real  union  without 
reform.  The  pope,  if  he  deviate  from  the  likeness 
of  the  sun  by  entering  ill,  by  living  ill,  by  ruling  ill, 
is  but  a  false  image  of  the  sun.  There  cannot  be  three 
suns,  but  only  one  true  sun.  The  emperor  attends  the 
council,  not  that  he  may  be  over  it,  but  that  he  may 
benefit  it;p  not  to  define  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical 
matters  by  royal  authority,  but  to  maintain  by  his  power 
those  things  which  the  synod  shall  determine.  The 
members  of  the  council — the  stars — are  assembled  by 
the  call  of  the  supreme  pontiff,  who  alone  has  the  right 
to  convoke  general  councils.  The  stars  are  to  have 
their  share  of  influence,  as  well  as  the  sun  and  the 
moon.  The  power  of  decreeing  and  defining  belongs, 
not  to  the  pope  alone,  but  to  the  whole  general  council ; 
and  to  assert  the  contrary  is  a  flattery  of  the  pope  which 
deserves  to  be  severely  reprobated.q 

In  order  to  avoid  disputes  as  to  precedence,  it  was 
arranged  that  the  members  of  the  council  should  sit 
promiscuously,  and  that  this  should  not  be  regarded  as 
infringing  on  the  privileges  of  any  one.r  But  questions 
arose  as  to  the  right  and  as  to  the  manner  of  voting.  In 
earlier  councils  the  power  of  voting  had  been  restricted 
to  bishops  and  abbots ;  but  d’Ailly  argued  that  it  ought 
now  to  be  extended  to  other  classes  ;  that  the  precedents 
of  ancient  councils  showed  much  variety ;  that  as  the 
present  questions  did  not  relate  to  the  church’s  faith  or 
to  the  sacraments,  the  examples  of  former  times  were  not 

p  “Non  ut  praesit  sed  ut  prosit.”  Histor.  Taschenbuch,  1849,  pp.  61, 
Col.  442.  seqq. 

'i  V.  d.  Hardt,  I.  iii.  435,  or  Gerson,  r  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  19. 
m.  900;  Hefele,  vii.  76.  See  Raumer, 


Chap.  VII T.  a.d.  1415.  QUESTIONS  AS  TO  VOTING.  349 

binding ;  that  the  titular  bishops,  of  whom  many  were 
present  at  the  council,  were  not  entitled  to  be  held  of  the 
same  account  with  the  bishops  of  the  earlier  church;  that 
the  learning  possessed  by  doctors  of  theology  and  of  civil 
and  canon  law — a  class  which  had  arisen  out  of  the  uni¬ 
versities,  and  had,  therefore,  been  unknown  in  the  days  of 
the  older  councils — was  of  such  value  as  to  render  them 
fitter  to  be  members  of  a  council  than  an  ignorant  bishop 
or  abbot;  and  that  the  representatives  of  princes,  of  ab¬ 
sent  prelates,  and  of  capitular  churches,  ought  also  to  be 
admitted.®  Fillastre,  cardinal  of  St.  Mark,  in  arguing  on 
the  same  side,  maintained  that  many  parish  priests  were, 
both  by  the  weight  of  their  character  and  by  the  import¬ 
ance  of  their  charges,  more  to  be  regarded  than  some 
bishops;  and  he  declared  “that  an  ignorant  king  or 
prelate  is  but  a  crowned  or  mitred  ass.”1  The  arguments 
for  extending  the  right  of  voting  prevailed,  to  the  disad¬ 
vantage  of  John,  who  had  relied  on  the  numbers  of  his 
titular  bishops.  But  his  interest  was  yet  more  seriously 
affected  by  a  novelty  which  was  introduced  as  to  the 
manner  of  voting.  Hitherto  the  decisions  of  councils 
had  been  determined  by  a  majority  of  the  whole  body. 
But  as  John  had  at  his  command  a  host  of  insignificant 
prelates — titulars,  officials  of  his  court,  and  needy  occu¬ 
pants  of  petty  Italian  sees — it  was  proposed,  in  order  to 
counteract  this  undue  influence,  that  each  nation  should 
debate  by  itself,  and  that  the  final  decision  should  be 

given  by  the  representatives  of  the  several 

•  •  F' 0b  7 

nations,  which  were  thus  to  be  on  an  equality. 

This  proposal,  derived  from  the  arrangements  of  the  uni¬ 
versity  of  Paris,  was  carried  by  the  emperor’s  influence ; 
and  the  four  nations — Italian,  French,  German,  and  Eng¬ 
lish — proceeded  to  their  separate  deliberations.11  Their 


*  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  224-7.  4  It).  228. 
u  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  230,  seqq.  ;  iv.  40. 


As  to  the  constituent  parts  of  the  na¬ 
tions,  see  Marmor,  31.  For  instance. 


35° 


CHARGES  AGAINST  JOHN  XXIII. 


Book  VIII. 


meetings  were  held  in  the  refectories  and  chapter-houses 
of  the  various  convents  in  the  town,  while  the  general 
sessions  of  the  council  took  place  in  the  cathedral. x 

Cardinal  Fillastre,  who,  as  dean  of  Reims,  had  for- 
merly  been  a  zealous  champion  of  the  papacy, 
L  sent  forth  a  paper,  in  which,  after  a  considera¬ 

tion  of  other  expedients,  it  was  proposed  that  each  of  the 
rival  popes  should  cede  his  claims,  and  should  receive 
valuable  preferment  in  the  church  by  way  of  conso¬ 
lation. y  On  becoming  acquainted  with  this  scheme, 
John  is  said  to  have  been  violently  angry;  but  stronger 
measures  wrere  at  hand. 

A  paper  of  charges  against  John  was  produced  before 
the  council — it  is  supposed,  by  an  Italian.2  These 
charges  were  in  part  so  dark  and  monstrous  that  it  wras 
said  that  they  ought  to  be  kept  secret,  out  of  reverence 
for  the  papal  office,  and  in  order  to  avoid  the  general 
scandal  of  Christendom.*  John,  who  through  his  secret 
informants  became  aware  of  the  movement,  was  inclined 
to  admit  some  of  the  accusations,  to  deny  others,  and  to 
take  his  stand  on  a  supposed  principle  that  a  pope  could 
not  be  deposed  except  for  heresy ;  but  he  was  persuaded 
by  his  confidential  advisers  to  await  the  progress  of 
events.  In  the  meantime  the  German,  French,  and 
English  nations,  without  knowing  that  he  had  any  sus¬ 
picion  of  the  charges,  resolved  that  he  should  be  advised 
to  resign  his  dignity  ;  and  John,  alarmed  by 
1  '  the  intelligence  which  he  had  secretly  gained, 

the  English  nation  included  Ireland,  personally  more  important;  but  they 
“  das  ist  Schottenland,”  together  with  were  told  that  they  must  vote  with 
Arabia,  Media  and  Persia,  India,  their  respective  nations.  V.  d.  Hardt, 
Prester  John’s  country,  Ethiopia,  iv.  140. 

Egypt,  Morocco,  etc.  (Ulr.  v.  Reich-  x  Marmor,  24-8. 

enlh.  ib.  35.)  The  cardinals,  on  May  *  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  208,  seqq. 

2,  cLimed  that  they  might  have  a  vote  1  The  date  is  not  certain.  Lenf.  L 
as  a  nation — being  almost  as  numerous 

as  the  English  representatives,  and  1  Ta  N  :n,  in  V.  d  H  t.- Jt,  ii.  3^1. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  HE  PROMISES  TO  RESIGN. 


agreed  to  the  proposal,  with  the  condition  that  his  rivals 
should  also  resign.13  Immediately  after  having  entered 
into  this  engagement,  he- began  to  attempt  an  escape  from 
it;  he  rejected  two  forms  of  cession  which  were  proposed 
by  the  council,  and  the  council  rejected  a  form  of  his 
proposing;0  but  at  length  he  was  induced,  at  the  second 
general  session,  to  swear  before  the  high  altar  of  the  cathe¬ 
dral,  after  having  himself  celebrated  mass,  , 

,  ’  ,  ,  r  1  •  1  c  March  2. 

that  he  would  freely  resign  the  papacy  it 

the  other  claimants  would  also  resign,  or  if  in  any  other 
way  his  resignation  might  extinguish  the  schism  and  re¬ 
store  peace  to  the  church. d  This  promise  was  received 
with  unbounded  joy;  the  emperor  kissed  John’s  feet,  and 
thanked  him  in  the  name  of  the  council,  and  the  patriarch 
of  Antioch  added  the  thanks  of  the  whole  church.  T 
Dcum  was  sung,  and  the  bells  of  the  cathedral  announced 
the  happy  event  to  the  world. e  When,  however,  John 
was  asked  to  put  his  engagement  into  the  form  of  a  bull, 
he  refused  with  vehement  anger ;  but  on  being  requested 
by  Sigismund  in  person,  he  saw  that  further  resistance 
would  be  useless,  and  on  the  7  th  of  March  he  issued  a 
bull  of  the  desired  tenor.f 

It  was  Sigismund’s  wish  that  the  council  should  settle 
the  religious  difficulties  which  had  arisen  in  Bohemia,  as 
well  as  the  great  schism.  He  therefore  requested  his 
brother  Wenceslaus  to  send  Hus  to  Constance,  .tnd 
promised  him  a  safe-conduct.g  Hus,  who  had  always  pro¬ 
fessed  to  desire  the  opportunity  of  appealing  to  a  general 
council,11  willingly  accepted  the  summons.  He  presented 

b  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  233 ;  Th.  Niem,  ib.  f  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  53.  “Pads  bo- 
392  ;  Th.  Vrie,  ib.  i.  160.  num,”  etc. 

0  Ib.  iv.  43-4 ;  Th.  Niem,  ib.  ii.  393-4.  s  Petrus  de  Mladenovic  (secretary  to 
d  Ib.  ii.  240-1  ;  iv.  45-6.  John  of  Chlum),  in  Docum.  237-8. 

e  Ib.  ii.  241  ;  iv.  46;  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  h  Palacky,  Gesch.  III.  i.  312. 

1616. 


HUS  SETS  OUT. 


Book  VIII. 


w  ■? 
o:2 


himself  before  a  synod  held  by  the  archbishop  of  Prague 
in  August  1414,  and  publicly  challenged  any  one  to  im¬ 
pugn  his  faith,  on  condition  of  suffering,  in  case  of  defeat, 
the  same  penalties  which  would  have  fallen  on  Plus  if 
convicted.1  The  challenge  was  not  accepted,  and  Palecz 
describes  the  Hussite  party  as  so  exasperated  that  it  was 
unsafe  to  call  them  by  their  leader's  name.k  The  arch¬ 
bishop,  on  being  questioned  by  the  nobles  who  befriended 
Hus,  declared  that  he  had  no  charge  of  heresy  to  bring 
against  him,  but  that  as  he  had  been  accused  by  the 
pope,  he  must  make  his  excuses  to  the  pope;  and  they 
wrote  to  Sigismund,  requesting  that  Hus  might  be  allowed 
to  defend  himself  freely,  lest  Bohemia  should  be  unjustly 
discredited.1  Hus  obtained  certificates  of  his  orthodoxy 
from  the  king,  from  the  archbishop,  and  from  the  papal 
inquisitor  for  Bohemia — Nicolas,  bishop  of  Nazareth,  to 
whom  he  had  submitted  himself  for  examination.111  Yet  in 
truth  his  position  was  one  which  it  is  now  hardly  possible 
to  understand;  for  while  he  believed  himself  to  be  a  faith¬ 
ful  adherent  of  the  system  established  in  the  church,  his 
opinions  were,  in  some  respects,  such  as  later  experience 
has  shown  to  be  altogether  subversive  of  it.n 

On  the  eve  of  setting  out  for  the  council  he  showed 
some  signs  of  misgiving.  He  was  warned  by  friends  not 
to  trust  the  promised  safe-conduct ;  and  some  letters 
which  he  wrote  by  way  of  farewell  indicate  a  foreboding 
that  he  might  never  be  allowed  to  return.0  On  the  nth 
of  October,  without  waiting  for  the  arrival  of  the  safe-con¬ 
duct,11  Hus  began  his  journey  under  the  escort  of  three 


‘  Mladenov.  238  ;  Hus,  Epp.  33-5. 
k  Ap.  Hus,  Opera,  i.  255*.  Palecz 
spoke  of  them  as  Quidamistce.  Ib. 

1  Docum.  53. 

m  Opera,  i.  2*,  3* ;  Mladenov.  239. 
242-4.  ”  Neand.  ix.  459. 

0  E.g.,  Epp.  37-8;  Palacky,  Gesch. 
III.  i.  315.  In  Ep.  38  (which  was  not 


to  be  opened  until  after  his  death),  he 
warns  a  friend  against  the  company  of 
women  and  other  temptations  of  th 
clergy— among  them,  against  an  undue 
fondness  for  chess,  over  which  Hus 
laments  that  he  himself,  before  he  was 
a  priest,  had  sometimes  lost  his  temper. 

P  Ep.  37  ;  Mladenov.  244. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1414.  HUS  AT  CONSTANCE. 


353 


noblemen  appointed  by  the  Bohemian  king,  John  and 
Henry  of  Chlum,  and  Wenceslaus  of  Dubna.  As  he 
passed  through  the  towns  of  Germany,  he  offered  to  give 
an  account  of  his  faith,  and  engaged  in  frequent  discus¬ 
sions.  Notwithstanding  the  old  national  quarrel  as  to 
the  university  of  Prague  (which  was  afterwards  revived  as 
a  charge  against  him),  he  was  well  received  everywhere, 
especially  at  Nuremberg;  nor  was  there  any  attempt  to 
enforce  the  interdict  which  had  been  pronounced  against 
any  place  in  which  he  might  be.q 

On  the  3rd  of  November  Hus  arrived  at  Constance, r 
and  two  days  later  (on  the  very  day  of  the  opening  of  the 
council)  he  received  the  promised  safe-conduct,  which 
Sigismund  had  granted  at  Spires  on  the  14th  of  October.s 
In  answer  to  an  application  by  John  of  Chlum,  John 
XXIII.  declared  that  Hus  should  be  safe  at  Constance 
if  he  had  slain  the  pope’s  own  brother ;  and  he  suspended 
the  interdict  and  ban,  although  he  desired  that  Hus 
should  refrain  from  attendance  at  mass,  lest  some  excite¬ 
ment  should  arise.1  But  Hus  never  ceded  his  right  to 
perform  the  priestly  functions,  and  he  continued  to  cele¬ 
brate  mass  as  before."  In  the  meantime  two  of  his  bit¬ 
terest  enemies  arrived  at  Constance, — ’Stephen  of  Palecz,x 
whose  breach  with  him  has  been  already  mentioned,  and 
one  Michael  of  Deutschbrod,  who,  after  having  been  a 
parish  priest  at  Prague,  had  become  a  projector  of  mining 
speculations,  but  had  since  been  appointed  by  the  pope 
to  the  office  of  proctor  in  causes  of  faith,  and  thence  was 
commonly  styled  De  CausisJ  These  and  other  adversaries 


q  Epp.  39,  41,  43  ;  Mladenov.  245  ; 
Opera,  i.  4* ;  Palacky,  Gesch.  III.  i. 
316-17.  See  p.  321. 

r  Ulr.  v.  Reichenth.  in  Marmor,  69. 
8  Epp.  40,  49  ;  Mladenov.  245 ;  Pa¬ 
lacky,  Gesch.  III.  i.  318. 

*  Ep.  43 ;  Opera,  i.  4*  ;  Mlad.  246. 
u  Ep.  42.  The  writer  (perhaps  John 

VOL.  VII. 


Cardinal,  a  Bohemian  priest),  reports 
that  Aliquis,  nescitur  an  amicus  vel 
inimicus,  heri  intimavit  in  ecclesia, 
quia  Mgr.  Hus  dominico  proximo  prse- 
dicabit  ad  clerum  in  ecclesia  Constan- 
tiensi,  et  cuilibet  fircesenti  dabit  unum 
ducatum."  -x  Mlad.  246. 

y  Ep.  77  ;  Opera,  i.  4  ;  Mlad.  246 

23 


354 


IMPRISONMENT  AND 


Book  VIII. 


posted  upon  the  doors  of  churches  bills  denouncing  Hus  as 
an  excommunicated  and  obstinate  heretic ;  they  supplied 
the  pope,  the  cardinals,  and  other  members  of  the  council 
with  extracts  maliciously  selected  from  his  writings;  they 
circulated  tales  and  rumours  against  him,  representing 
his  errors  as  of  the  darkest  kind,  and  yet  as  so  popular 
in  Bohemia  that,  if  he  were  allowed  to  return,  the  lives  of 
the  clergy  would  not  be  safe  there.2 

Proposals  were  made  by  which  Hus  might  probably 
have  been  allowed  to  escape  easily  ;  but  he  had  always 
insisted  on  a  public  hearing,  and  he  looked  for  the  ex¬ 
pected  arrival  of  the  emperor.a  By  the  industrious  exer¬ 
tions  of  his  enemies,  and  by  a  false  report  that  he  had 
attempted  a  flight  from  Constance, b  the  authorities  were 
persuaded  to  place  him  under  restraint.  On  the  28th  of 
November  he  was  decoyed  into  the  pope’s  residence,  and 
was  thence  removed  for  custody  to  the  house  of  the 
precentor  of  the  cathedral ; c  and  on  the  6th  of  December 
he  was  transferred  to  a  dungeon  in  the  Dominican  con¬ 
vent,  where  the  stench  and  other  inconveniences  soon 
produced  a  serious  illness,  so  that  his  medical  advisers 
prescribed  a  removal. d  Meanwhile  his  friend  John  of 
Chlum  protested  loudly  against  his  imprisonment  as  an 
insult  to  the  emperor,  who  had  granted  a  safe-conduct. 
He  reproached  the  pope  to  his  face,  and,  by  an  appeal 
to  Sigismund,  procured  an  order  that  Hus  should  be  set 


V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  21,  146 ;  Palacky, 
Gesch.  III.  i.  320.  Another  enemy, 
Stanislaus  of  Znaym,  died  while  pre¬ 
paring  to  set  out.  Theob.  21. 

1  Mlad.  246  ;  Palacky,  Gesch.  III. 
i.  321. 

a  Epp.  36,  41  ;  Opera,  i.  5  ;  Neand. 
ix.  466.  John  Cardinal  writes  on  Nov. 
xo,  ‘  ‘  Auca  nondum  est  assata,  nec  timet 
de  assatione,  quia  praesenti  anno  sab- 
bato  ante  Martini  festum  ipsius  occurrit 
Celebris  vigilia,  ubi  aucae  non  come- 


duntur.”  Ep.  42. 
b  See  Lechler,  ii.  195. 
c  Mlad.  248-9,  252;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv. 
22  ;  Palacky,  Gesch.  III.  i.  322-3. 
Nauclerus  and  Ulric  of  Reichenthal 
say  that  he  was  caught  in  an  attempt 
to  escape  (Cochl.  73).  Against  the  idea 
of  his  having  attempted  to  escape,  see 
Lenf.  i.  88-90  ;  Seyfr.  143  ;  Milman,  vi. 
15  ;  Hefele,  vii.  70. 

d  Mlad.  252  ;  Theob.  23  ;  Palacky, 
Gesch.  III.  i.  324-6. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1414.  EXAMINATION  OF  HUS. 


355 


at  liberty  ; e  and  as  this  was  disregarded,  he  affixed  to  the 
church  doors  on  Christmas-eve,  when  the  emperor  was 
approaching  the  city,  a  protest  in  Latin  and  in  German 
against  the  treachery  which  had  been  practised  towards 
Hus,  and  the  neglect  of  the  emperor’s  warrant  for  his 
liberation. f 

While  confined  in  his  noisome  prison,  without  access 
to  books,  and  almost  at  a  loss  for  the  means  of  writing," 
Hus  composed  some  tracts  on  religious  subjects,  at  the 
request  of  his  keepers  and  for  their  instruction,  and  was 
required  to  draw  up  answers  to  a  set  of  charges  brought 
against  him  by  Palecz  and  Michael  de  Causis,11  the 
pope  having  on  the  first  of  December  appointed  certain 
commissioners  for  the  investigation  of  his  case.1  These 
charges  were  partly  grounded  on  extracts  unfairly  made 
from  his  treatise  ‘Of  the  Church’  and  other  books,  partly 
on  the  evidence  of  unguarded  letters  which  had  been 
intercepted.151  On  being  questioned  as  to  the  articles,  he 
explained  the  sense  in  which  he  believed  them ;  but  on 
being  asked  whether  he  would  defend  them,  he  answered 
“  No,”  and  added  that  he  stood  at  the  determination  of 
the  council.1  He  declared  his  wish  to  adhere  to  the 
church,  to  the  tradition  of  the  fathers,  and  to  the  canons, 
except  where  these  were  opposite  to  Scripture ;  and  he 
professed  himself  willing  to  retract  any  errors,  and  to 
be  instructed  by  any  man™ — of  course,  with  the  secret 
condition  that  the  instruction  should  agree  with  his 
previous  convictions.  As  being  accused  of  heresy,  he 


e  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  26 ;  Mlad.  251 ; 
Palacky,  Gesch.  III.  i.  324-5;  Neand. 
ix.  474.  In  answer  to  John  of  Cblum, 
the  pope  said  that  the  arrest  was  the 
act  of  the  cardinals ;  but  in  a  letter 
written  by  his  direction  to  the  univer¬ 
sity  of  Paris  (Mansi,  xxvii.  14)  he 
speaks  of  it  as  his  own  act. 
f  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  27 ;  Mlad.  252-3. 
s  Opp.  i.  29*,  seqq.  In  Ep.  45,  he 


entreats  John  of  Chlum  to  send  him  a 
Bible;  “etsi  Petrus  [de  Mladenovic] 
scriptor  vester  habet  incaustum,  ut 
mihi  det,  et  pennas  aliquot,  et  unum 
parvum  calamare.” 

h  Doc.  194,  199,  204,  seqq. 

*  Opera,  i.  7 ;  Mlad.  252,  254 ;  He- 
fele,  vii.  71. 

k  Epp.  48,  51  ;  Neand.  ix.  478. 

1  Ep.  51.  m  lb. 


EXAMINATION  OF  HUS. 


Book  VIII 


3  56 


was  not  allowed  the  assistance  of  an  advocate  ;  where¬ 
upon  he  told  the  commissioners  that  he  committed  his 
cause  to  Him  who  would  shortly  judge  them  all,  as 
his  advocate  and  proctor.11 

With  regard  to  the  treasury  of  the  merits  of  the  saints, 
their  intercession,  and  the  power  and  dignity  of  the 
blessed  Virgin,  he  expressed  himself  in  accordance 
with  the  current  theology  of  the  time.0  As  to  the 
eucharistic  presence,  he  held  that  it  was  enough  for 
a  simple  Christian  to  believe  the  verity  of  the  Saviour’s 
body  and  blood  ;  but  for  himself  he  acknowledged  the 
change  denoted  by  the  name  of  transubstantiation,  and 
made  use  of  the  term  itself.p  This  change  he  held  to 
be  wrought  by  Christ  himself  through  the  medium  of 
the  priest;  and  therefore  that  a  wicked  priest  might 
consecrate  effectually,  although  to  his  own  condem¬ 
nation. ^  One  of  the  charges  against  him  related  to 
the  administration  of  the  cup  to  the  laity.  The  neces¬ 
sity  of  this  had  been  maintained  by  one  James  (or 
Jacobellus)  of  Misa,  a  parish  priest  of  Prague/  after 
Hus  had  set  out  for  Constance ;  and  Hus,  on  having  his 
attention  drawn  to  the  question,  declared  the  practice 
to  be  scriptural,  primitive,  and  desirable,  but  would  not 
affirm  the  necessity  of  it.8 


n  Ep.  54.  A  Parisian  deputy,  in 
speaking  on  the  affair  of  John  Petit 
(see  below),  said  that  if  Hus  had 
been  allowed  an  advocate,  he  could 
never  have  been  convicted.  (Gerson, 
v.  444  ;  Neand.  ix.  478.)  But  perhaps 
this  means  that  the  speaker  disap¬ 
proved,  not  of  the  condemnation  of 
Hus,  but  of  the  arts  employed  on  be¬ 
half  of  Petit.  0  Opp.  i.  51. 

p  lb.  39-40,  162;  Neand.  ix.  487. 
q  Opp.  i.  39-40. 

r  As  to  Jacobellus,  see  notes  on  Sey- 
frid,  34,  56.  His  diminutive  name  was 
given  to  him  as  being  short  of  stature. 
He  was  a  native  of  Stibro,  a  Bohemian 


town  which  in  Latin  is  called  Misa, 
from  the  neighbouring  river  Miess. 
He  is  charged  with  having  departed 
from  the  order  of  the  church  in  many 
points — among  them,  by  the  use  of  un¬ 
authorized  hymns.  See  the  Anonym i 
Epist.  ad  Jacobellum,  in  V.  d.  Hardt, 
iii.  337,  seqq.,  and  other  tracts  in  the 
same  volume. 

8  Doc.  194  ;  Opera,  i.  42-4  ;  V.  d. 
Hardt,  iii.  336,  356,  seqq.  ;  iv.  187  ;  Ep. 
51.  Hus’s  correspondence  with  Jacob¬ 
ellus  was  intercepted  and  copied,  in 
order  to  be  used  against  him,  by  the 
contrivance  of  Michael  de  Causis  (Ep. 
48).  Jacobellus  has  been  said  to  hat-  • 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  GERSON  AGAINST  HUS. 


357 


Unfortunately  for  Hus,  the  liberal  or  reforming  party 
in  the  council  was  not  disposed  to  favour  him.  The 
Parisian  school,  while  bent  on  limiting  the  power  of 
the  papacy,  insisted  on  strictness  of  orthodoxy,  and 
regarded  Hus  as  likely,  by  opinions  which  to  them 
seemed  extravagant  and  revolutionary,  to  bring  danger 
and  discredit  on  their  own  projects  of  reforms;  moreover, 
as  nominalists,  they  were  opposed  to  the  realism  of  his 
philosophical  tenets.1  Gerson  had  written  to  the  arch¬ 
bishop  of  Prague,  urging  him  to  use  severe  measures 
against  the  errors  which  had  arisen  in  Bohemia,  and, 
if  ecclesiastical  censures  should  be  insufficient,  to  have 
recourse  to  the  secular  arm.u  He  had  obtained  from  the 
Theological  faculty  of  Paris  a  condemnation  of  twenty 
propositions  extracted  from  Hus’s  writings  ;x  and  in  for¬ 
warding  this  condemnation  to  the  Bohemian  primate,  he 
had  spoken  of  the  doctrine  that  one  who  is  in  mortal  sin 
has  no  dominion  over  Christian  people y  as  one  against 
which  “  all  dominion,  both  temporal  and  spiritual,  ought 
to  rise,  in  order  to  exterminate  it  rather  by  fire  and 
sword  than  by  curious  reasoning.”  2  From  Gerson  and 


derived  his  opinion  from  Peter  of  Dres¬ 
den,  a  Waldensian  who  had  been  driven 
to  take  refuge  in  Bohemia.  (Ain.  Syl¬ 
vius,  Hist.  Bohem.  i.  35,  p.  204.)  But 
the  existence  of  this  Peter  is  questioned, 
and  it  is  said  that  the  story  is  not  found 
until  twenty  years  later ;  so  that  the 
opinion  of  Jacobellus  is  probably  trace¬ 
able  rather  to  the  teaching  of  Matthias 
of  Janow(Palacky,  III.  i.  332-3;  Neand. 
ix.  488).  Hus,  when  asked  by  the 
Bohemians  at  Constance,  on  May  31, 
1415,  to  declare  himself  as  to  the  ad¬ 
ministration  in  both  kinds,  said  that  it 
was  scriptural,  and  that  he  would  wish 
it  to  be  granted  by  bull  to  such  as  out 
of  devotion  should  desire  it,  “  circum- 
stantiis  adhibitis  ”  (V.  d.  Hardt,  iv. 
291).  After  the  council  had  condemned 
it,  on  J  uae  15,  he  wrote  more  strongly 


in  favour  of  it  (Epp.  78,  80  ;  Giesel.  II. 
iv.  414) ;  but  an  undated  letter,  in 
which  he  is  made  to  exhort  a  priest  to 
inculcate  the  practice  (Ep.  92),  is  pro¬ 
bably  spurious  or  interpolated. 

1  Mosheim,  iii.  20. 
u  Doc.  523,  May  27,  1414.  A  pas¬ 
sage  quoted  above,  p.  343,  n.  p,  has 
been  alleged  as  illustrating  the  extra¬ 
vagances  into  which  Gerson  is  supposed 
to  have  been  led  by  his  zeal  for 
unity,  and  the  unscrupulousness  with 
which  he  was  prepared  to  treat  Hus 
as  an  enemy  to  the  church’s  peace. 
But,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  reason 
to  doubt  the  authorship. 
x  lb.  185,  528. 
y  See  above,  p.  292. 
z  Doc.  528,  Sept.  24,  1414.  Hus 
writes,  “  O  si  Deus  daret  tempus  scri- 


353 


SIGISMUND  GIVES  UP  HUS. 


Book  VIII. 


his  party,  therefore,  no  sympathy  was  to  be  expected  by 
the  Bohemian  reformer. 

Sigismund,  on  receiving  from  John  of  Chlum  the 
first  notice  of  Hus’s  imprisonment,  was  indignant  at  the 
violation  of  his  safe-conduct,  and  threatened  to  break 
open  the  prison.®  After  reaching  Constance  he  was 
still  so  much  dissatisfied  on  this  account,  that  he  even 
withdrew  for  a  time  from  the  city ;  but  it  was  represented 
to  him  that,  if  he  persisted  in  such  a  course,  the  council 
must  break  up,  and  he  shrank  from  the  thought  of  not 
only  endangering  his  own  reputation  for  orthodoxy,  but 
rendering  all  his  labours  void  and  perpetuating  the 
division  of  Christendom. b  He  was  plied  with  arguments 
and  with  learning  from  the  canon  law,  urging  that  his 
power  did  not  extend  to  the  protection  of  a  heretic  from 
the  punishment  due  to  his  errors  ;  that  the  letter  which 
he  had  granted  ought  not  to  be  used  to  the  injury 
of  the  catholic  faith  ;  that  he  was  not  responsible,  in¬ 
asmuch  as  the  council  had  granted  no  safe-conduct, 
and  the  council  was  greater  than  the  emperor.0  It 
would  seem,  too,  that  his  feelings  with  regard  to  Hus 
were  altered  by  the  reports  which  reached  him,  so  that 
he  came  to  regard  the  Bohemian  reformer  as  a  teacher 
of  mischievous  errors,  both  in  politics  and  in  religion. 
The  king  of  Aragon  wrote  to  him  that  “  faith  is  not 
broken  in  the  case  of  one  who  breaks  his  faith  to  God  ;”d 
and  unhappily  the  emperor  consented  to  violate  truth, 
honour,  and  humanity  by  declaring  that  the  council  was 


bendi  contra  mendacia  Parisiensis  can- 
cellarii,  qui  tam  temerarie  et  injuste, 
coram  tanta  multitudine,  non  est  veri- 
tus  proximum  erroribus  annotare.  Sed 
forte  Deus  scripturam  mea  vel  sua 
morte  praeripiet,  et  melius  in  judicio 
definiet,  quam  ego  scriberem.”  Ep.  56. 

*  V.  d.  Hardt,  IV.  i.  26. 

b  Sig.  to  the  Bohemians,  Doc.  612  ; 


Palacky,  III,  i.  328 ;  Schwab,  583 ; 
Aschb.  ii.  97. 

c  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  396 ;  Cochl.  74  ; 
Schrockh,  xxxiv.  625-6  ;  Schmidt,  iv. 
*39- 

d  Doc.  540.  But  this  letter  probably 
did  not  reach  Sigismund  until  after  his 
step  had  been  taken.  For  passages 
written  in  a  like  spirit,  see  Schwab,  283. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  POPE  JOHN  IN  DANGER. 


359 


at  liberty  to  take  its  own  course  as  to  inquiries  into 
charges  of  heresy.e  At  a  later  time  he  attempted  to 
palliate  this  concession  by  alleging  the  importunities 
with  which  he  had  been  assailed,  and  the  difficulties 
of  his  position.1 

The  consent  which  pope  John  had  given  to  the 
violation  of  the  imperial  safe-conduct  in  the  case  of  Hus 
was  to  recoil  on  himself ;  and  it  was  in  vain  that,  when 
the  council  proceeded  against  him,  he  appealed  to  the 
promises  which  had  been  made  to  him.  In  the  hope 
of  propitiating  the  emperor  (of  whom  it  is  said  that  he 
habitually  spoke  in  very  contemptuous  terms),8  he  be¬ 
stowed  on  him  the  golden  rose,  which  was 
the  special  mark  of  papal  favour;11  but 
Sigismund  was  not  to  be  diverted  from  his  purpose  by 
this  gift,  which,  instead  of  keeping  it,  he  dedicated  to  the 
blessed  Virgin  in  the  cathedral  of  Constance.1  Strict 
orders  were  issued  that  no  one  should  be 
permitted  to  leave  the  town ;  and  J ohn,  after 
some  urgency,  was  brought  to  promise  that  he  would 
not  depart  until  after  the  council  should  have  ended 
its  sessions.^  Some  differences  of  opinion  now  began 
to  show  themselves  between  the  nations.  The  Germans 
and  the  English  were  bent  on  sacrificing  John  for  the 
unity  of  the  church ;  Hallam,  bishop  of  Salisbury,  told 
him  to  his  face,  in  the  emperor’s  presence,  that  a  general 


March  10, 1415. 


March  14. 


e  V.  d.  Hardt  (iv.  32)  and  Hefele  (vii. 
76)  give  Jan.  1.  1415,  as  the  date  ;  but 
Schwab  seems  to  be  right  in  saying  that 
this  is  too  early.  282. 

r  Letter  to  the  Bohemians,  in  Leaf, 
ii.,  Suppl  450.  Schwab  (583)  quotes  a 
letter  of  John  of  Montreuil  (in  Mar- 
tene.  Coll.  Ampl.  ii.  1445),  as  if  Sigis¬ 
mund  had  taken  credit  (sick  geruhmt) 
at  Paris  for  his  breach  of  faith.  But 
surely  this  is  not  the  meaning  of  the 
words — “Hoc  .  .  .  non  est  veritus 
palam  .  .  .  confiteri." 


s  “  Asserens  eura  esse  pauperem  et 
bibulum,”  and  falsely  asserting  that  he 
wanted  to  get  money  from  the  pope  as 
the  price  of  keeping  him  in  the  papacy. 
Th.  Niem,  396. 
h  See  p.  189. 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  55. 
k  lb.  ii.  393  ;  iv.  59,  126,  133.  But 
this  may  have  been  ambiguous — the 
pope  assuming  that  his  departure  would 
put  an  end  to  the  council.  Lenf.  i. 
123. 


36° 


FLIGHT  OF  POPE  JOHN. 


Book  VIII. 


March  16. 


council  was  superior  to  the  pope,  and  the  speech  met 
with  no  rebuke  from  Sigismund,  to  whom  John  com¬ 
plained  of  it.1  But  the  Italians  had  always  been  with 
John,  and  the  French  now  began  to  show  a  milder 
disposition  towards  him — chiefly,  it  would  seem,  from 
a  spirit  of  opposition  to  the  English  members,  whose 
king  was  at  this  very  time  preparing  to  carry  his  arms 
into  the  heart  of  France.111 

In  the  hope  of  effecting  some  diversion,  John  pro¬ 
posed  that  the  council  should  remove  to  Nice,  or  some 
place  in  its  neighbourhood,  or  that  he  himself 
should  repair  to  the  same  region  for  a  con¬ 
ference  with  his  rival  Benedict ;  but  these  schemes  met 
with  no  favour,  and  he  found  himself  driven  to  another 
course.11  On  the  evening  of  the  20th  of  March,0  while 
the  general  attention  was  engrossed  by  a  tournament 
given  by  duke  Frederick  of  Austria  (whom,  as  we  have 
seen,  John  had  before  engaged  in  his  interest),11  the 
pope  escaped  from  Constance  in  the  disguise  of  a  groom, 
and  fled  to  Schaffhausen,  which  was  within  the  duke’s 
territory.11  Thence  he  wrote  to  the  council  that  he  had 
no  intention  of  evading  his  engagements,  but  had  left 
Constance  in  order  that  he  might  execute  them  with 
greater  liberty  and  in  a  more  healthful  air ;  and  he 
declared  that  duke  Frederick  had  not  been  privy  to  his 
flight.1" 

On  the  23rd  of  March,  when  the  council  was  about  to 
send  envoys  to  the  fugitive  pope,  Gerson  delivered  a 
discourse  in  which  the  principles  of  the  reforming  party 


1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  59.  John  after¬ 
wards  absurdly  represented  the  bishop 
as  having  said  that  he  himself  was 
above  the  pope  and  the  whole  council. 
Ib.  ii.  260. 

m  Ib.  iv.  58. 

"  Ib. 

0  Hefele,  vii.  9a 


P  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  246.  See  above; 
P-  34i- 

q  Th.  Niem,  395  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  v. 

56-9- 

r  Ib.  ii.  252.  In  his  letter  to  the 
Duke  of  Orleans,  he  admitted  the  con¬ 
trary.  Ib.  261  ;  Hefele,  vii.  92,  96. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  GERSON  ON  THE  PAPACY.  36 1 

were  strongly  pronounced.3  The  Head  of  the  church, 
he  said,  is  Christ ;  the  pope  is  its  secondary  head.  The 
union  between  Christ  and  the  church  is  inseparable,  but 
the  union  of  the  church  and  the  pope  may  be  dissolved. 
As  the  church,  or  a  general  council  which  represents  it, 
is  directed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  a  pope  is  bound  to 
hear  and  to  obey  such  a  council  under  pain  of  being 
accounted  as  a  heathen  and  a  publican.  A  pope  can¬ 
not  annul  its  decrees,  and,  although  it  may  not  take  away 
the  pope’s  power,  it  may  limit  that  power.  A  general 
council  may  be  assembled  without  the  consent  or  man¬ 
date  of  a  lawfully  elected  and  living  pope — among  other 
cases,  if  he  should  himself  be  accused,  and  should  refuse 
to  call  a  council ;  and  also  if  there  be  a  doubt  between 
rival  claimants  of  the  papacy.  And  the  pope  is  bound 
to  accept  the  decisions  of  a  council  with  a  view  to  the 
termination  of  a  schism.1 

About  the  same  time  the  university  of  Paris  sent  two 
papers  of  conclusions,  which,  although  not  fully  adopted 
by  the  council,  were  of  great  use  to  it.u  In  these  papers 
it  was  laid  down  that  the  pope  could  not  dissolve  the 
council,  and  that  any  attempt  to  do  so  would  bring  him 
under  suspicion  of  schism,  if  not  of  heresy;  that  the 
church  is  more  necessary,  better,  of  greater  dignity,  more 
honourable,  more  powerful,  more  steady  in  the  faith,  and 
wiser  than  the  pope,  and  is  superior  to  him  ;  that  the 
pope  holds  his  power  through  the  church  and  as  its 
representative;  and  that  the  council  may  judge  and 
depose  him,  even  as  it  may  be  necessary  to  take  a  sword 
out  of  the  hand  of  a  madman. x 

8  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  265-74  >  iv.  65 ;  ing  it,  either  with  or  without  his  own 
Mart.  1  hes.  ii.  1619.  consent,  if  his  continuance  would  be 

1  Gerson,  Opera,  ii.  201,  seqq.  In  injurious  to  the  church.  Opp.  ii.  209, 
his  treatise  ‘  De  Auferibilitate  Papae  ab  seqq. 

Ecclesia,’  Gerson  said  that  a  pope  may  u  As  to  the  dates,  see  Hefele.vii.  116. 
be  taken  away  by  resignation,  or  by  the  x  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  273,  seqq.  ;  cf.  iv. 
church,  or  a  general  council  represent-  175-6. 


362 


COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE 


Book  VIII. 


The  language  of  Gerson’s  sermon  became  known  to 

? larch  J0^11  on  ^ie  same  day  by  means  of  the 
J'  envoys  to  whom  it  had  been  addressed.  In 
the  hope  of  breaking  up  the  council,  he  immediately  sum¬ 
moned  his  cardinals,  with  the  members  of  his  household 
and  the  officials  of  his  court,  to  join  him  ;  and  seven 
cardinals,  with  many  of  the  inferior  persons,  obeyed  the 
summons. y  Yet  it  would  seem  that  the  pope  was  made  a 
coward  by  his  conscience  ;  for,  instead  of  hurling  ana¬ 
themas  at  his  opponents  in  the  lofty  style  of  Hildebrand, 
he  could  only  have  recourse  to  complaints  and  evasions.2 
He  wrote  to  the  king  of  France,  to  the  duke  of  Orleans, 
to  the  university  of  Paris,  and  others,  querulously  setting 
forth  his  grievances  against  the  emperor  and  the  council.'4 

There  was  indeed  reason  to  fear  that  the  council  would 
be  unable  to  continue  its  sessions  ;  some  were  even  afraid 
that  it  might  end  in  a  general  tumult  and  plunder;  but 
Sigismund,  by  firmly  exerting  his  authority  and  influence, 
succeeded  in  keeping  the  great  body  of  the  assembly 
together,  and  in  holding  them  to  the  pursuit  of  the  object 
for  which  they  had  met.  At  the  third  general  session, 
on  the  26th  of  March,  it  was  affirmed  that,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  withdrawal  of  the  pope,  or  of  any  others,  the 
sacred  council  was  not  dissolved,  but  remained  in  its 
integrity  and  authority;  that  it  ought  not  to  be  dissolved 
until  it  should  have  effected  the  extirpation  of  the  schism 
and  a  reform  of  the  church  in  faith  and  morals,  in  head 
and  members ;  that  it  was  not  to  be  transferred  to  any 
other  place ;  and  that  none  of  the  members  should  leave 
Constance  without  its  permission  until  its  proceedings 
should  be  duly  concluded. b 

y  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  253  ;  iv.  67,  Theod.  council,  and  the  council  to  recall  him. 
Niem,  ib.  ii.  398-9.  (Apr.  2)  Bekynton,  Epp.  253-4. 

z  Milman,  vi.  33.  b  Ib.  iv.  707;  Th.  Niem,  ib.  ii.  398. 

a  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  253,  262.  The  To  this  time  belongs  a  placard,  which 
university  urged  John  to  rejoin  the  was  posted  on  the  doors  of  the  bishop’s 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  AFTER  JOHN’S  FLIGHT. 


3^3 


In  a  general  congregation,  on  the  29th  of  March, 
Gerson  proposed  a  strong  censure  against  John  on 
account  of  his  flight;  but  the  cardinals  succeeded  in 
averting  it.0  At  the  fourth  session,  on  the  following  day, 
it  was  resolved  that  the  council’s  power,  derived  imme¬ 
diately  from  Christ,  was  superior  to  all  dignities, — even  to 
that  of  the  pope,  who  was  bound  to  obey  it  in  matters 
relating  to  the  faith  and  to  the  extirpation  of  the  schism. d 
When  this  document  came  to  be  read  aloud  by  cardinal 
Zabarella,  he  was  persuaded  by  his  brother-cardinals  to 
leave  out  such  parts  as  were  most  strongly  antipapal ; e 
but,  as  the  nations  complained  loudly  of  this,  the  omitted 
passages  were  at  the  next  session  read  out 
by  the  archbishop  of  Posen .f  At  the  same 
session  it  was  resolved  that  Sigismund  should  be  re¬ 
quested  to  bring  back  John,g  who,  in  alarm  at  the  intelli¬ 
gence  which  he  daily  received  as  to  the 
proceedings  of  the  council,  had  removed  aicl29- 
on  Good  Friday  from  Schaffhausen  to  the  castle  of 
Lauffenburg.h  There,  in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  he 
executed  a  written  protest,  declaring  that  his  concessions 
had  been  made  through  fear  of  violence,  and  therefore 
were  not  binding ;*  and  he  wrote  to  the  ^ 
council,  alleging  the  same  motive  for  his 
flight.k  From  Lauffenburg  he  withdrew  further  to  Frei¬ 
burg,  in  the  Breisgau,1  where  a  deputation  from  the 
council,  headed  by  two  cardinals,  waited  on  him,  with  a 
request  that  he  would  appoint  proctors  to  carry  out  the 


palace,  reflecting  severely  on  John  and 
the  cardinals,  and  exhorting  the  coun¬ 
cil  to  steadfastness.  See  Mart.  Thes. 
i.  1620. 

0  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  81,  85  ;  Hefele,  vii. 
99-101. 

d  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  86.  Bp.  Hefele 
treats  this  point  tenderly.  The  coun¬ 
cil,  he  says,  was  not  a  general  council 
until  its  last  session,  when  it  was  in 


harmony  with  Martin  V.  vii.  104. 

e  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  281.  The  muti¬ 
lated  form  is  given,  lb.  iv.  89. 

f  lb.  ii.  82 ;  iv.  88,  96,  98.  See  Lenf. 
i.  151-6. 

s  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  102. 
h  Th.  Niem,  v.  399. 

1  lb.  400. 

k  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  102. 

1  Th.  Niem,  v.  400. 


364  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE.  Book  VI 1 1. 

promised  act  of  resignation.  The  pope  received  them  in 

bed,  and  answered  roughly,  but  promised  to  send  proctors 

after  them.m  From  Freiburg  he  sent  to  the  council  a 

statement  of  the  terms  on  which  he  was  willing  to  resign 

— that  he  should  be  legate  throughout  all  Italy  for  life, 

and  should  have  a  like  authority  in  the  region  of  Avignon, 

with  an  income  of  30,000  florins,  and  a  share  with  the 

other  cardinals  in  the  emoluments  of  the  capella.  But 

the  council  regarded  the  proposal  as  a  proof  that  John 

intended  to  trifle  with  them  by  requiring  extravagant 

and  impossible  conditions.11  Frederick  of  Austria  was 

cited  to  answer  for  his  complicity  in  the  pope’s  flight, 

and,  as  he  did  not  appear,  was  put  under 
April  7.  ,  \  c  .  .  . 

the  ban  of  the  empire  as  a  traitor  to  it, 
the  council,  and  the  church.0  His  neighbours,  both 
ecclesiastical  and  secular,  were  summoned  to  chastise 
him,p  and,  in  conjunction  with  the  imperial  forces,  they 
overran  his  territories,  so  that  he  was  compelled  to  sue 
at  the  emperor’s  feet  for  forgiveness,  to  promise  that 
he  would  give  up  the  pope,  and  to  receive 
submissively  by  a  new  investiture  a  portion 
of  his  former  dominions,  to  be  held  at  the  imperial 
pleasured 

From  Freiburg  John,  still  wishing  to  be  at  a  greater 
distance  from  the  council,  proceeded  to  Breisach  and  to 
Neuenburg,  but  Frederick,  in  fulfilment  of  his  engage¬ 
ment  to  bring  him  back,  desired  that  he  would  return  to 
Constance ;  while  the  papal  officials,  finding  no  prospect 


m  “Adhucjacens  in  lecto,  et  scalp- 
pendo  se  inferius  inverecunde,  respondit 
satis  aspere.  ”  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  400. 
n  lb.  403-4  ;  iv.  106. 

0  lb.  iv.  103. 

p  Although  the  Swiss  had  lately  con¬ 
cluded  a  fifty-years’  peace  with  him, 
the  emperor  insisted  that  this  would 
not  excuse  them  from  performing  their 


feudal  duty.  Mailath,  i.  223;  Aschb. 
ii.  74-5- 

1  Th.  Vrie,  199 ;  Mart.  Thes.  ii. 
1631,  1635  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  405-6  ;  iv. 
103,  158-93;  Mailath,  i.  224-7.  Hence 
he  got  the  name  of  Frederick  with  the 
empty  pocket  (Hefele,  vii.  121) ;  but 
he  afterwards  became  rich  again.  Coxe, 
i.  225-8,  231. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  JOHN.  365 


a1  xy  2. 


of  advantage  in  adhering  to  John,  deserted  him  and 
rejoined  the  council.1. 

In  the  meantime  argument  ran  high  in  that  assembly. 
The  patriarch  of  Antioch,  although  hostile  to  John  per¬ 
sonally,  asserted  the  papal  pretensions  in  their  extremest 
form — quoting  from  Gratian  a  dictum  that  if  the  pope, 
by  his  misconduct  and  negligence,  should  lead  crowds  of 
men  into  hell,  no  one  but  God  would  be  entitled  to  find 
fault  with  him.8  But  to  this  d’Ailly  replied  in  a  tract, 
which  was  afterwards  embodied  in  his  larger  treatise  ‘  Of 
Ecclesiastical  Power,’  maintaining  the  authority  of  the 
general  council  over  the  pope,  and  taxing  the  patriarch 
with  having  been  one  of  the  flatterers  who,  “  by  feeding 
John  with  the  milk  of  error,  had  led  him  to  his  ruin.”1 
Wearied  and  irritated  by  John’s  evasions  and 
artifices,  the  council,  at  its  seventh  session, 
cited  him  to  appear  in  person  within  nine  days,  in  order 
to  answer  charges  of  heresy,  schism,  simony,  maladminis¬ 
tration,  notorious  waste  of  the  property  of  the  Roman 
and  other  churches,  and  diminution  of  their  rights;  of 
incorrigibly  scandalous  life  ;  and  of  having  attempted,  by 
his  clandestine  flight,  to  hinder  the  union  and  reformation 
of  the  church. u  John  proposed  that,  instead  of  appearing, 
he  should  appoint  three  cardinals  as  his  proxies ;  but 
those  whom  he  named  declined  the  task,  and  the  council 
resolved  that  in  a  criminal  case  proxies  could  not  be 
admitted.x  Witnesses  were  examined  in  support  of  the 
charges.7  On  the  13th  of  May,  there  seemed  to  be  a 
chance  of  a  diversion  in  John’s  favour,  as  Sigismund 
received  letters  informing  him  that  the  Turks  were 
ravaging  Hungary,  in  alliance  with  the  Venetians ;  but 


r  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  405-6.  Some  are  295-300;  iv.  129;  Lenf.  i.  136-7;  He- 
said  to  have  returned  “quia  spera-  fele,  vii.  112. 

bantreperirebonamcoquinam.”  Mart.  t  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  129-31  ;  vi.  63, 
Thes.  ii.  1621.  seqq.  u  lb.  iv.  143-6. 

8  Grat.  Dist.  xl.  c.  6 ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  x  lb.  165,  169-70.  y  lb.  187. 


366 


COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


Book  VIII. 


his  answer  was  that,  even  if  he  should  lose  the  whole 
kingdom,  he  would  not  forsake  the  church  and  the 
council.2  On  the  14th  the  pope  was  cited,  and,  as  he 
did  not  answer,  was  pronounced  contumacious ;  on  the 
following  day  sentence  of  suspension  was  publicly  pro¬ 
nounced  against  him ; a  and  the  council  resolved  to 
proceed  to  deposition,  if  it  should  be  necessary.  A  fresh 
examination  of  witnesses — thirty-seven  in  number — was 
then  undertaken,  and  some  of  John’s  wrongful  bulls  and 
grants  were  put  in  evidence.11  The  heads  of  accusation 
May  16.  were  seventy-two,  but  there  was  much  of 
May  25.  iteration  among  them.0  Some  of  them  were 
Sess.  xi.  not  read  aloud,  out  of  regard  for  decency 
and  for  the  reverence  due  to  the  papacy. d  Carrying  back 
the  inquiry  to  his  earliest  years,  the  indictment  charged 
him  with  having  been  rebellious  to  his  parents,  and  given 
to  all  vices  from  his  youth.  He  was  said  to  have  got  his 
preferments  by  simony;  to  have  been  guilty  of  gross 
maladministration  as  legate ;  to  have  contrived  the  death 
of  Alexander  V.  As  pope,  he  was  charged  with  having 
neglected  the  duties  of  religion ;  with  rape,  adultery, 
sodomy,  incest;  with  corruption  of  every  sort  in  the 
bestowal  of  his  patronage.  He  was  styled  a  poisoner,  a 
murderer ;  he  had  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
and  eternal  life  ;  he  had  intended  to  sell  the  head  of  St. 
John  the  Baptist,  from  the  church  of  St.  Sylvester,  to  some 
Florentines  for  50,000  ducats.  It  was  alleged  that  his 
misconduct  was  notorious  and  scandalous  to  all  Christen¬ 
dom  ;  that  he  had  obstinately  neglected  the  admonitions 
which  had  been  addressed  to  him  from  many  quarters  ; 
that  he  had  dealt  deceitfully  with  the  council,  and  had 
absconded  from  it  by  night  in  the  disguise  of  a  layman.0 

z  Mart.  Thess.  ii.  1632-3,  1640.  d  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  196,  seqq.,  228  ; 

a  lb.  181-6.  Gobel  Pers.  340, 

b  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  219,  228,  253.  e  The  fifty-four  articles  which  were 

c  Hefele,  vii.  130.  read  aloud  are  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  237. 


Chap  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  DEPOSITION  OF  JOHN. 


367 


May  29. 


The  evidence  was  considered  to  be  so  strong  that  his 
deposition  was  resolved  on,  as  being  guilty  of  simony,  mal¬ 
administration  of  his  office,  dilapidation  of  the  church’s 
property,  and  scandalous  life.f  His  seal  was 
broken ;  all  Christians  were  released  from 
allegiance  to  him ;  and  he  was  condemned  to  be  kept  in 
custody  until  the  election  of  a  new  pope,  to  whom  the 
further  disposal  of  him  was  to  be  left.  It  was  decreed 
that  no  election  should  take  place  without  the  consent 
of  the  council,  and  that  no  one  of  the  existing  claimants 
should  be  eligible.8 

John  had  been  brought  back  by  duke  Frederick  to 
Radolfszell,  near  Constance,11  whence,  on  the  26th  of  May, 
he  addressed  a  letter  to  the  emperor,  reminding  him 
of  favours  which  the  pope  professed  to  have  done  to 
him  in  helping  him  to  the  crown,  in  seconding  his  wishes 
as  to  the  council,  and  in  other  ways,  and  imploring  him 
to  observe  his  promise  of  a  safe-conduct.  But  Sigismund, 
instead  of  being  softened  by  this  letter,  appears  to  have 
been  rather  irritated  by  the  contrast  between  its  tone  and 
that  which  he  knew  to  be  employed  by  John  in  speaking 
and  writing  of  him  to  others.1  On  the  second  day  after 
the  sentence  of  the  council  had  been  passed,  it  was 
announced  to  John  by  a  deputation  of  five 
cardinals.  He  listened  to  it  with  submission  ay 
and  calmness,  begging  only  that  regard  might  be  had 
to  his  dignity  in  so  far  as  might  be  consistent  with  the 
welfare  of  the  church.  He  voluntarily  swore  that  he 
would  never  attempt  to  recover  the  papacy,  and,  strip¬ 
ping  off  the  insignia  of  his  office,  he  declared  that  he 


248 ;  the  others,  which  are  said  to  have 
been  proved,  although  not  read,  ib. 
248,  seqq.  Cf.  ii,  407.  As  to  the  wit¬ 
nesses,  see  iv.  250.  f  Ib.  iv.  269. 

s  Ib.  281-4.  It  was  regarded  as  sig¬ 
nificant  that,  on  the  29th  of  May,  the 


words  “  Nunc  judicium  est  mundi : 
nunc  princeps  hujus  mundi  ejicietur 
foras”(Joh.  xii.  31)  were  read  in  the 
Gospel  at  high  mass. 
h  May  18.  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  82. 

1  Ib.  259-62  ;  Th.  Niem,  ib.  ii.  408. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  JOHN  XXIII. 


Book  VIII. 


368 


had  never  known  a  comfortable  day  since  he  had  put 
them  on.k 

The  ex-pope  was  made  over  to  the  care  of  the  elector 
palatine ;  for  it  was  considered  that  the  iniquities  which 
had  been  proved  against  him,  and  his  attempt  to  escape, 
had  annulled  the  imperial  safe-conduct.1  For  some  years 
he  was  detained  as  a  prisoner,  chiefly  at  Heidelberg ; m 
and  this  continued  even  after  the  council,  at  its  first 

Dec  28  1  1  sessi0n  un(ler  Martin  V.,  had  decreed  that 
’ 1417  he  should  be  transferred  by  the  emperor  and 
the  elector  to  the  pope.n  At  length,  however,  by  the 
payment  of  a  large  sum  to  the  elector,  he  obtained  leave 
to  go  into  Italy,  where  at  Florence  he  made  his  sub¬ 
mission  to  the  new  pope,  and  from  him  received  the 
dignity  of  cardinal-bishop  of  Frascati.  But  within  a 
few  months  he  died  at  Florence,  without  having  taken 
possession  of  his  see.0 


The  council  had,  after  John’s  flight  from  Constance, 
again  directed  its  attention  to  the  case  of  Hus,  who, 
having  been  discharged  from  the  custody  of  the  pope’s 
servants,  was  made  over  to  the  bishop  of  Constance,  and 
by  him  was  kept  in  chains  at  the  neighbouring  castle  of 


Gottlieben.p  The  Parisian 

k  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  276,  286,  291-6. 

J  lb.  iv.  297-8  ;  Th.  Niem,  lb.  ii. 
408.  On  June  3,  he  was  removed  to 
Gottlieben,  lately  the  place  of  Hus’s 
confinement.  Ib.  iv.  296. 

m  J.  Fistenport,  in  Hahn,  Miscell.  ii. 
402.  “  Quo  tempore,  ut  ipse  ex  eo 

audivi,  vix  hominem  aliquando  nactus 
est  quocum  liceret  humano  sermone 
conferre.”  Andr.  Billius,  in  Murat, 
xix.  43.  See  Rymer,  ix.  539,  610. 

“  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1497. 

0  Leon.  Aret.  in  Murat,  xix.  930-1  ; 
Vita  Mart.  V.,  ib.  III.  ii.  863  ;  Antonin. 
487 ;  Hefele,  vii.  322.  Cossa  arrived 


reforming  party,  as  has  been 

at  Florence  on  the  eve  of  Corpus 
Christi,  1419,  and  died  Nov.  23.  (1st. 
di  Firenze,  in  Murat,  xix.  962-3,  where 
there  is  a  curious  account  of  his  burial 
in  the  Baptistery  of  Florence.)  It  has 
been  commonly  said  that  the  greatness 
of  the  Medici  family  was  advanced  by 
the  wealth  which  rewarded  its  kindness 
to  the  dethroned  pontiff  (Platina,  291); 
but  in  truth  he  had  very  little  to  leave. 
Roscoe,  Life  of  Lorenzo,  54;  Reumont, 
ii.  fin. 

p  Opera,  i.  7* ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  287 ; 
Mladenov.  255. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  CHARGES  AGAINST  HUS.  369 

already  said,  was  resolved  to  assert  its  own  orthodoxy 
by  disavowing  all  sympathy  with  one  whose  ^ 
ideas  it  regarded  as  crude,  unsound,  and 
revolutionary;  and  when  a  new  commission  was  ap¬ 
pointed  for  the  examination  of  his  case q — the  flight  of 
pope  John  having  vitiated  the  authority  of  the  earlier 
commissioners — d’Ailly,  as  a  member  of  it,  took  a 
strong  part  against  him.  Reports  of  James  of  Misa’s 
practice  as  to  administration  of  the  eucharist  in  both 
kinds  were  received  from  Prague,  and  were  circulated  in 
exaggerated  forms.  It  was  said  that  Hus’s  principles  as 
to  endowments  had  been  carried  out  by  the  spoliation  of 
many  Bohemian  churches/  The  bishop  of  Leitomysl, 
one  of  Hus’s  bitterest  and  most  persevering  enemies, 
represented  that  in  Bohemia  the  sacramental  wine  was 
carried  about  in  unconsecrated  bottles,  and  that  the 
laity  handed  .it  to  each  other ;  that  laymen  of  good 
character  were  considered  to  be  better  authorized  to 
administer  the  sacraments  than  vicious  priests ;  that 
cobblers  presumed  to  hear  confessions  and  to  give 
absolution/ 

The  Bohemian  and  Moravian  nobles  protested  strongly 
and  repeatedly  both  against  the  treatment  of  Hus  and 
against  the  imputations  which  were  thrown  on  the  faith 
of  their  nation/  They  urged  that  Hus  might  be  allowed 
a  free  hearing,  while  he  himself  made  requests  to  the 
same  purpose,  and  declared  that  he  was  willing  to  be 
burnt  rather  than  to  be  secluded  ; u  and  as  the  proposal 
of  a  hearing  was  supported  by  Sigismund,  the  reformer 
was  transferred  from  Gottlieb en  to  the  Franciscan  con- 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  100.  552  (a  letter  with  the  seals  of  270  nobles, 

r  Opp.  i.  vi.  [misprinted  xii.];  cf.  May  12),  259  (the  bishop  of  Leito- 
Doc.  198.  mysl’s  reply)  ;  Hefele,  vii.  131,  171. 

8  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  287;  Mladenov.  See  Palacky,  Gesch.  III.  i.  344-5,  as  to 
258,  264.  the  pretences  set  up  in  answer. 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  32,  33,  288 ;  Mlade-  u  Ep.  60. 
nov.  259,  261,  264,  266;  Doc.  535,  548, 

VOL.  VII. 


24 


37° 


COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


Book  VIII. 


vent  at  Constance,  and  on  the  5th  of  June  was  brought 
before  the  council. x  Worn  by  long  imprisonment,  by 
the  severities  by  which  it  had  been  aggravated,  and  by 
serious  illness  of  various  kinds,  he  was  called  on  to 
answer  the  questioning  of  all  who  might  oppose  him, 
while,  as  being  suspected  of  heresy,  he  was  denied  the 
assistance  of  an  advocated  An  attempt  had  been  made, 
before  his  admission,  to  get  him  condemned  on  account 
of  certain  passages  which  his  enemies  had  extracted  from 
his  writings  ;  but  this  had  been  defeated  by  the  exertions 
of  John  of  Chlum  and  Wenceslaus  of  Dubna,  who  re¬ 
quested  the  emperor  to  intervene.2 

On  the  first  day  of  Hus’s  appearance,  the  uproar 
was  so  great  that  he  could  not  find  a  hear- 
J  ’  ing;a  on  the  second  day,  Sigismund  himself 
attended,  to  preserve  order — a  task  which  was  by  no 
means  easy.b  Of  the  charges  brought  against  him,  Hus 
altogether  denied  some,  while  he  explained  others,  and 
showed  that  his  words  had  been  wrongly  construed.0 
In  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharistic  presence,  he  agreed 
with  the  current  teaching  of  the  church,  and  differed 
from  that  of  Wyclif,  with  whom  it  was  sought  to  connect 
him.  D’Ailly,  a  zealous  nominalist,  endeavoured  to  en¬ 
trap  him  by  a  scholastic  subtlety  as  to  the  ceasing  of  the 
universal  substance  of  bread  after  the  consecration ;  to 


x  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  290,  306 ;  Hefele, 
vii.  149. 

Epp.  63,  66-7  ;  Palacky,  III.  i.  331. 
In  Ep.  67,  Hus  mentions  that  he  had 
dreams  which  had  been  fulfilled — not, 
he  says,  to  claim  the  character  of  a  pro¬ 
phet,  but  to  show  what  were  his  trials 
of  body  and  mind.  In  a  letter,  written 
Jn  the  beginning  of  June,  he  says  to 
John  of  Chlum  :  “  Qui  concesserunt 
pecunias,  nescio  quis  solvet  eis  praeter 
Dominum  Jesum  Christum,  propter 
quem  concesserunt.  Optarem  tamen 
quod  aliqui  ditiores  componerent  et 


solverent  pauperioribus.”  This  is  a 
remarkable  illustration  of  the  reformer’s 
principle  as  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
clergy.  Stephen  of  Dolan  charges  the 
Hussites  with  contradicting  their  own 
principles,  by  getting  all  that  they  could 
in  benefices,  offerings,  bequests,  etc. 
Pez,  IV.  ii.  569. 

z  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  306-7  ;  Mladenov. 
275;  Palacky,  III.  i.  331. 

a  Ep.  63  ;  Mlad.  275  ;  V.  d.  Hardt, 
iv.  307.  b  lb.  308. 

0  lb.  308,  seqq.;  Mlad.  274. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  EXAMINATION  OF  HUS.  37 1 

which  Hus  replied  that,  although  the  substance  ceases 
to  be  in  the  individual  piece  of  bread,  it  remains  as 
subject  in  other  individual  pieces.d  An  English  doctor 
suggested  that  the  accused  was  equivocating  like  Berengar 
and  Wyclif ;  but  Hus  declared  that  he  spoke  plainly  and 
sincerely.e  Another  Englishman  protested  against  the 
introduction  of  irrelevant  philosophical  matters,  inasmuch 
as  Hus  had  cleared  his  orthodoxy  with  regard  to  the 
sacrament  of  the  altar.f 

Much  was  said  as  to  the  connexion  of  Hus’s  doctrines 
with  those  of  Wyclif,  which  the  council  had  lately  con¬ 
demned  under  forty-five  heads ; g  indeed  an  English 
Carmelite,  named  Stokes,  with  whom  Hus  had  formerly 
been  engaged  in  controversy,  sarcastically  told  him  that 
he  need  not  pride  himself  on  his  opinions  as  if  they  were 
his  own,  since  he  was  merely  a  follower  of  Wyclif.11  Hus 
explained  that  he  had  found  himself  unable  to  join  in 
the  late  condemnation  on  all  points  ;  thus,  he  would  not 
say  that  Wyclif  erred  in  censuring  the  donation  of  Con¬ 
stantine,  or  in  regarding  tithes  as  alms  and  not  as  an 
obligatory  payment.1  On  being  pressed  as  to  having 
expressed  a  wish  that  his  own  soul  might  be  with  that  of 
Wyclif,  he  explained  that  he  had  said  so  in  consequence 
of  the  reports  which  had  reached  him  as  to  Wyclif’s 
good  life,  and  before  his  writings  were  known  in  Bohemia ; 
nor  had  he  intended  to  imply  a  certainty  of  Wyclif’s  sal- 


d  Ep.  65 ;  Mlad.  277 ;  V.  d.  Hardt, 
iv.  308. 

e  Ep.  65  ;  Mlad.  277,  309  ;  V.  d. 
Hardt,  iv.  309. 

f  Mlad.  277.  Lenfant  thinks  that 
the  eucharist  was  probably  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  one. of  the  two  articles  which 
Hus  (Ep.  63)  speaks  of  as  having  been 
struck  out  of  the  indictment,  i.  312. 

8  May  4.  See  Mansi,  xxvii.  631 ;  V. 
d.  Hardt,  iii.  168,  212,  seqq.;  iv.  137 ; 
Hefele,  vii.  116-19.  It  was  decided 


that,  as  Wyclif  had  died  an  impenitent 
heretic,  his  body  and  bones,  “  si  ab  aliis 
fidelium  corporibus  discerni  possint,” 
should  be  exhumed  and  cast  out  of 
ecclesiastical  sepulture  (V.  d.  Hardt, 
iv.  150-7).  As  to  the  execution  of  this 
sentence,  see  Rayn.  1427.  14;  Fuller, 
ii.  423-4. 

h  Doc.  308.  See  above,  p.  323. 

1  V,  d.  Hardt,  iv.  310,  327  ;  Mlad. 
279. 


372 


COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


Book  VIII. 


vation.k  As  to  the  opinion  that  a  priest  in  mortal  sin 
could  not  consecrate,  he  stated  that  he  had  limited  it 
by  saying  that  one  in  such  a  state  would  consecrate  and 
baptize  unworthily.1  But  when  he  was  charged  with 
holding  that  a  king,  a  pope,  or  a  bishop,  if  in  mortal  sin, 
was  no  king,  pope,  or  bishop,  his  answers  were  such  as 
to  provoke  from  Sigismund  an  exclamation  that  there 
had  never  been  a  more  mischievous  heretic,  as  no  man 
is  without  sin.m  Much  was  said  on  predestination  and 
the  subjects  connected  with  it;  as  to  which  Hus  seems 
to  have  drawn  his  opinions  from  Wyclif. 

The  question  of  the  papal  supremacy  brought  out  the 
uncritical  nature  of  Hus’s  views.  He  traced  the  pope’s 
pre-eminence  to  the  supposed  donation  of  Constantine  ; 
and,  although  D’Ailly  told  him  that  he  would  do  better 
to  refer  it  to  the  sixth  canon  of  Nicsea  (as  that  canon 
was  then  commonly  understood),  he  still  adhered  to  his 
belief  in  the  donation.11  In  answer  to  a  charge  of  having 
urged  his  followers  to  resist  their  opponents  by  force  of 
arms,  Hus  denied  that  he  had  recommended  the  material 
sword ;  and  it  would  seem  that  some  words  of  his 
as  to  the  spiritual  armour  of  the  Christian  had  been 
misinterpreted.0 

The  affair  as  to  the  expulsion  of  the  Germans  from 
Prague  was  brought  forward,  and  was  urged  by  Palecz 
and  by  another  Bohemian  doctor ;  p  but  as  to  this  it 


k  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  311  ;  Mlad.  280. 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  310,  322 ;  cf.  Doc. 
184.  At  a  later  hearing  he  said  that 
popes,  bishops,  etc.,  being  “  fore¬ 
known ’’and  in  mortal  sin,  “non  sunt 
vere  tales  quoad  merita,  vel  digne  coram 
Deo,  pro  tunc  sunt  tamen  quoad  officia 
tales.”  Mladenov.  ib.  310. 

m  Ib.  299 ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  321. 
Gerson  was  severe  on  these  notions 
(Neand.  ix.  511).  Even  Neander  thinks 
that  Hus  would  have  done  better  by 


explaining  his  paradoxical  expressions. 
Ib.  508. 

n  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  316-17.  Mladenov. 
291.  Hus  also  refers  repeatedly  (as  he 
had  before  done  in  his  writings)  to 
the  story  of  the  supposed  female  pope. 
V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  317,  323  ;  Mladenov. 
3°5- 

0  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  311. 

P  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  name 
Naso  is  descriptive  or  a  form  of  his 
real  surname. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  EXAMINATION  OF  HUS. 


373 


appears  that  Hus  was  able  to  satisfy  his  judges. q  He 
was  also  questioned,  among  other  things,  as  to  having 
said  that,  unless  he  had  voluntarily  come  to  Constance, 
he  could  not  have  been  compelled  to  do  so  by  all  the 
authority  of  the  council  and  of  the  emperor.  In  expla¬ 
nation  of  these  words  he  said  that  he  might  have  been 
safely  concealed  among  the  many  castles  of  the  nobles 
who  were  friendly  to  him  ;  and  this  was  eagerly  con¬ 
firmed  by  John  of  Chlum,  while  cardinal  d’Ailly  angrily 
cried  out  against  Hus’s  audacity.1'  D’Ailly  told  him 
that  he  had  done  wrong  in  preaching  to  the  people 
against  cardinals  and  other  dignitaries,  when  there  were 
no  such  persons  to  hear  him ;  to  which  Hus  could  only 
reply  that  his  words  had  been  meant  for  the  priests  and 
learned  men  who  were  present.*3 

At  the  end  of  a  trial  which  lasted  three  Tuie§ 
days,  Palecz  and  Michael  de  Causis 
solemnly  protested  that  they  had  acted  solely  from  a 
sense  of  duty,  and  without  any  malice  towards  the 
accused ;  and  d’Ailly  then  again  repeated  an  opinion 
which  he  had  often  expressed  in  the  course  of  the 
proceedings — that  Hus  had  been  treated  with  much 
consideration,  and  that  his  opinions  were  less  offen¬ 
sively  represented  in  the  charges  than  they  appeared 
in  his  own  writings.4  Exhausted  by  illness  and  fatigue, 
Hus  was  led  back  to  prison,  receiving  as  he  passed  a 
pressure  of  the  hand  and  some  words  of  comfort  from 
John  of  Chlum.  The  emperor,  who  had  in  vain  urged 
the  prisoner  to  retract,11  then  declared  that  any  one  of 

<1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  312 ;  Mladenov.  thusian,  speaking  apparently  of  some 
282 ;  Doc.  197.  private  examination,  says  of  Hus, 

r  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  313;  Mladenov.  “Nunquamvidiitaaudacemettemera- 
283.  rium  ribaldum,  et  qui  ita  caute  sciret 

*  lb.  293;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  3x7.  Cf.  respondere  detegendo  (?)  veritatem.” 
Doc.  19S.  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  1635.  The  date  “xix. 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  328  ;  cf.  309,  318,  Maii  ”  is  evidently  a  misprint  for  xxix. 
320;  Mladenov.  278,  285,  294.  A  Car-  u  Mladenov.  309. 


374 


HUS  IN  PRISON. 


Book  VI I  r. 


the  errors  which  had  been  brought  home  to  him  would 
have  been  enough  for  his  condemnation  ;  that,  if  he 
should  persist  in  them,  he  ought  to  be  burnt ;  that  his 
followers  ought  to  be  coerced,  and  especially  that  his 
disciple  who  was  then  in  custody — Jerome  of  Prague — 
should  be  speedily  dealt  with.* 

After  his  third  appearance  before  the  council,  Hus  was 

June  8 _  left  in  prison  for  nearly  a  month.  During 

July  6.  this  time  attempts  were  made  by  many  per¬ 
sons — among  them  by  cardinal  Zabarella — to  persuade 
him  to  abjure  the  errors  which  were  imputed  to  him. 
It  was  urged  on  him  that  by  so  doing  he  would  not 
admit  that  he  had  ever  held  the  errors  in  question  ; 
that  in  England  excellent  men  who  were  wrongly  sus¬ 
pected  of  Wyclifism  had  made  no  scruple  as  to  abjuring 
it.y  But  Hus  regarded  the  matter  in  a  more  solemn 
light,  and  thought  that  to  abjure  errors  which  were  falsely 
laid  to  his  charge  would  be  nothing  less  than  perjury.2 
He  regarded  his  fate  as  sealed,  although  he  still  professed 
himself  willing  to  renounce  his  opinions  if  any  others 
could  be  proved  to  be  truer  ;a  and  he  wrote  pathetic 
letters  of  farewell  to  some  of  his  Bohemian  friends.b  On 
the  30th  of  June  he  was  visited  by  Palecz,  to  whom,  as 
having  been  his  chief  opponent,  he  expressed  a  wish  to 
confess  ;  but  another  confessor,  a  monk  and  doctor,  was 
sent,  who  behaved  with  great  tenderness  to  him,  and 
gave  him  absolution  without  requiring  any  recantation  of 
his  opinions.  At  a  later  interview,  Palecz  wept  profusely, 
and  Hus  entreated  his  forgiveness  for  any  words  of  re¬ 
proach  which  he  might  have  used  against  him.c 

On  the  6th  of  July,  at  the  fifteenth  session  of  the 
council,  Hus  was  again  brought  forward — having  been 

x  Mladenov.  3x4  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  z  lb.  329. 

328-9-  *  lb.  345  ;  Mladenov.  3x6. 

y  Epp.  75,  85 ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  313,  b  E.g.t  Epp.  71,  73. 

325-6,  329-33,  342,  345-6.  c  Ep.  84  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  344-5. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415. 


HIS  SENTENCE. 


375 


detained  outside  the  church  until  the  mass  was  over,  lest 
his  presence  should  profane  the  holy  action.  The  bishop 
of  Lodi,  James  Arigoni,  a  Dominican,  preached  on  the 
text,  “Our  old  man  is  crucified  with  Him  that  the  body 
of  sin  might  be  destroyed  ”  (Rom.  vi.  6),  applying  the 
words  to  the  duty  of  extirpating  heresy  and  simony. 
The  acts  of  the  process  against  Hus  were  then  read, 
ending  with  an  exhortation  to  Sigismund  to  perform  the 
sacred  work  of  destroying  the  obstinate  heretic  by  whose 
malignant  influence  the  plague  of  error  has  been  so 
widely  spread. d  To  the  charges  was  now  added  a  new 
article — that  he  had  supposed  himself  to  be  a  fourth 
person  in  the  Godhead ;  but  this  he  disavowed  with 
horror  as  an  idea  that  had  never  entered  his  mind.®  He 
declared  that  he  had  come  to  Constance  freely,  in  order 
to  give  an  account  of  his  faith,  and  under  the  protection  of 
the  imperi.il  safe-conduct;  and  as  he  said  these  words,  he 
turned  his  eyes  on  Sigismund,  who  blushed  deeply. f  He 
frequently  interrupted  the  reading  of  the  charges  against 
him,  in  order  to  protest  his  innocence ;  but  the  cardinals 
d’Aiily  and  Zabareila  reduced  him  to  silence.g  He 
appealed  to  the  Saviour,  and  it  was  stigmatized  as  an 
attempt  to  overleap  all  the  order  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdic¬ 
tion.  But  Hus  continued  to  protest  and  to  appeal,  and 
he  added  a  prayer  for  the  forgiveness  of  his  enemies,  which 
called  forth  derision  from  some  members  of  the  council.11 


d  V.  d.  Hardt,  iii.  1-5 ;  iv.  389  ; 
Mladenov.  317. 

e  lb.  318  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  393.  The 
number  of  articles  condemned  was 
thirty,  and  they  were  afterwards  in¬ 
cluded  in  Martin  V.’s  bull  of  Feb.  22, 
1418 — “  Inter  cunctas.”  Ib.  1526;  He- 
fele,  vii.  200-4. 

1  Opera,  ii.  346;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  393. 
This  incident  became  so  famous  that 
Charles  V.,  when  he  was  advised  to 
arrest  Luther  at  the  diet  of  Worms, 


answered,  “  I  have  no  mind  to  blush, 
like  my  predecessor  Sigismund.”  Yet 
Bp.  Hefele,  in  his  desire  to  extenuate  the 
a  fiair  of  th  e  safe-conduct,  thinks  it  a  fabu 
ous  addition  to  the  story,  as  it  does  not 
appear  in  Mladenovicz.  (vii.  223.)  Hus’s 
expressions  in  Ep.  70,  written  in  June, 
seem  to  countenance  the  statement  of 
his  afterwards  having  put  Sigismund  to 
shame  by  a  reference  to  the  safe-conduct. 

£  Mladenov.  318;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  392. 

h  Mladenov.  319-20, 


376 


DEATH  OF  HUS. 


Book  VIII. 


The  ceremony  of  degradation  from  the  priesthood 
followed.  Hus  was  arrayed  in  the  vestments  of  the 
altar,  and  the  various  articles  symbolical  of  the  priestly 
authority  and  of  the  inferior  orders  of  the  ministry  were 
severally  taken  from  him  by  bishops,  while  at  every  stage 
he  made  some  remark  by  way  of  protest.1  As  to  the 
tonsure,  a  question  arose  whether  it  should  be  obliterated 
by  shaving,  or  by  clipping  the  surrounding  hair.  “  Lo,” 
said  Hus,  addressing  the  emperor,  “  these  bishops  cannot 
agree  even  as  to  the  way  of  mocking  me  !  ”k  When  the 
degradation  was  completed,  a  tall  paper  cap,  painted  with 
hideous  figures  of  devils,  was  placed  on  his  head,  and  a 
bishop  said  to  him,  “  Wre  commit  thy  body  to  the  secular 
arm,  and  thy  soul  to  the  devil.”  “And  I,”  said  Hus, 
“commit  it  to  my  most  merciful  Lord,  Jesus  Christ.”1 
As  he  was  led  away  to  death,  he  passed  a  spot  where  a 
heap  of  his  books,  which  had  been  condemned  by  the 
council,  was  burning  amidst  the  merriment  of  the  crowd. 
At  this  sight  he  smiled,  and  repeated  a  remark  which  he 
had  before  made  as  to  the  condemnation  of  his  Bohe¬ 
mian  writings  by  persons  who  could  not  read  them.™  In 
answer  to  a  question,  he  professed  a  wish  to  confess ; 
but,  as  the  confessor  insisted  that  he  should  begin  by 
acknowledging  and  renouncing  his  errors,  Hus  said  that 
confession  was  not  necessary,  as  he  was  not  in  mortal 
sin.n 

On  reaching  the  place  of  execution,  he  entreated  that 
the  bystanders  would  not  believe  him  guilty  of  the  errors 
which  were  imputed  to  him.0  After  he  had  been  bound 
to  the  stake,  he  was  once  more  asked  by  duke  Lewis  of 
Bavaria  whether  he  would  recant ;  but  he  remained  firm? 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  398,  seqq.  ;  Mlad.  Doc.  556  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  343,  394, 
320.  436,  445-6. 

k  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  394  ;  Mlad.  321.  n  Ulr.  v.  Reichenthal,  in  Marmor, 

1  lb  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  433.  74-5.  o  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  447. 

m  Mladenov.  321  ;  Joh.  Barbatus,  in  P  Mladenov.  323. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415. 


DEATH  OF  HUS. 


377 


and  suffered  with  unshaken  constancy,  uttering  to  the  last 
cries  for  mercy,  professions  of  faith  in  the  Saviour,  and 
prayers  for  the  forgiveness  of  his  enemies.*1  His  ashes 
and  the  scorched  remnants  of  his  clothes  were  thrown 
into  the  Rhine,  lest  they  should  be  venerated  as  relics  by 
his  adherents/ 

The  death  of  Hus  has  usually  been  regarded  as  a  deep 
stain  on  the  reputation  of  the  council  which  decreed  it, 
and  of  the  emperor  who,  notwithstanding  the  assurance 
of  protection  which  he  had  given  to  the  reformer,  con¬ 
sented  to  his  doom.  But  attempts  at  exculpation  have 
often  been  made  in  the  interest  of  the  Roman  church;3 
and  even  very  lately  it  has  been  argued,  by  a  writer  whose 
moderation  and  candour  are  usually  no  less  to  be  admired 
than  his  ability  and  learning,  that  there  was  no  breach  of 
faith  in  prosecuting  Hus  to  the  death,  notwithstanding 
the  safe-conduct  which  he  had  received/  The  name  of 
safe-conduct,  indeed,  appears  to  have  been  used  in  two 
senses — sometimes  signifying  the  escort  which  accom¬ 
panied  Hus  from  Bohemia,  and  sometimes  the  passport 
which,  although  promised,  did  not  reach  him  until  after 


1  Mladenov.  323  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv. 
447-8.  There  is  a  story  that  Hus,  seeing 
a  poor  peasant  (or,  according  to  some, 
an  old  woman)  carrying  a  faggot  to  add 
to  his  funeral  pile,  said  with  a  smile,  in 
words  borrowed  from  St.  Jerome,  “  O 
holy  simplicity  !  ”  (Luther,  Prsef.  III. 
in  Hus,  Opera.  See  Palacky,  III.  i. 
367.)  Another  story— that  Hus  prophe¬ 
sied  of  Luther  in  the  words  “  Hodie 
anserem  uritis,  sed  ex  meis  cineribus 
nascetur  cygnus,  quern  non  assare  pote- 
ritis” — is  repeatedly  given  in  Luther’s 
works,  and  may  probably  have  been 
made  up  in  his  time  from  some  expres¬ 
sions  in  Hus’s  letters  and  from  words 
spoken  by  Jerome  of  Prague  at  his 
death.  See  Gieseler,  II.  iv.  417  ;  Pa¬ 
lacky,  1.  c.  ;  Hefele,  vii.  213. 
r  Ulr.  v.  Reichenth.  in  Marmor,  75  ; 


V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  448  ;  Th.  Vrie,  ib.  i. 
171  ;  Doc.  558-9 ;  Byzyn.  in  Lude- 
wig,  Reliqq.  MSctorum,  vi.  135.  It  is 
said  that  the  earth  on  which  Hus  and 
Jerome  had  been  burnt  was  carried 
off  as  holy  by  the  Bohemians.  Cochl. 
153- 

8  Thus  Mansi  defends  the  proceed¬ 
ings  against  Hus  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  disregarded  the  prohibition  to 
teach,  etc.  N.  in  Rayn.  vii.  416  ;  cf. 
Rayn.  1415.  22. 

1  See  Plefele,  vii.  218,  seqq.  Schwab, 
on  the  other  hand,  reprobates  the  older 
writers  of  the  Roman  communion  who 
had  tried  to  explain  away  the  breach  of 
faith.  (583.)  Aschbach  (also  a  Roman 
catholic)  says  that  Sigismund  sacrificed 
his  personal  honour  for  the  benefit  of 
Christendom,  ii.  128. 


QUESTION  AS  TO 


Book  VIII. 


O 


73 


his  arrival  at  Constance;  and  this  double  meaning  will 
explain  some  difficulties  which  have  been  raised  as  to 
the  emperor’s  proceedings.11  It  is  pointed  out  that  the 
passport  did  not  profess  more  than  to  secure  for  Hus  an 
unmolested  journey  to  and  from  Constance ;  that  Sigis- 
mund  did  not  undertake,  and  could  not  have  undertaken, 
to  assure  him  against  the  consequences  of  an  accusation 
of  heresy ;  that  the  violation  of  the  safe-conduct  amounted 
to  nothing  more  than  the  arrest  of  Hus  before  trial  or 
conviction  :  that  the  Bohemians  do  not  charge  the  em- 
peror  with  breach  of  a  written  engagement,  but  only  with 
having  taken  part  against  Hus,  whereas  they  had  reckoned 
on  him  as  a  friend.x  Yet  even  according  to  this  view, 
the  arrest  of  Hus,  which  is  admitted  to  have  been  a 
breach  of  the  safe-conduct,  instead  of  being  followed  by 
his  liberation,  in  compliance  with  the  protests  of  his 
friends  and  with  Sigismund’s  own  declarations,  led  to  his 
being  immured  in  one  loathsome  dungeon  after  another, 
to  his  being  loaded  with  chains,  ill  fed,  and  barbarously 
treated ;  and,  when  reduced  to  sickness  and  debility  by 
such  usage,  and  deprived  of  all  literary  means  of  defence, 
he  was  required  to  answer  to  the  capital  charge  of  heresy. 
Even  on  this  supposition,  therefore,  the  wrong  by  which 
the  safe-conduct  was  violated  was  one  which,  in  its  con¬ 
sequences,  subjected  the  accused  to  cruel  sufferings,  and 
destroyed  the  fairness  of  his  trial. 

But  in  truth  it  seems  clear  that  the  safe-conduct  was 
supposed  to  imply  much  more  than  is  here  allowed.  The 
excitement  which  arose  on  Hus’s  arrest  is  not  to  be 
accounted  for  by  the  mere  informality  of  that  act,3,  nor  is 


u  See  Lenf.  i.  217  :  Neand.  ix.  502  ; 
Hefele,  vii.  156,  218. 

x  Palacky,  III.  i.  170,  357;  Hefele, 
vii.  124,  220,  224.  Sigismund,  in  his 
apologetic  letter  to  the  Bohemians 
(Paris,  Mar.  24, 1416),  says  that  if  Hus 
had  previously  met  him,  and  had  ac¬ 


companied  him  to  Constance,  the  result 
might  have  been  different.  Hoc.  6x2. 

y  “  Revera  est  hodie  perturbatio 
propter  salvum  conductum  sibi  praesti- 
turn.”  Letter  ot  the  representatives 
of  the  university  of  Cologne,  in  Mar- 
tene,  Thes.  ii.  1611. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  THE  CASE  OF  HUS. 


379 


it  easy  to  reduce  the  complaints  of  his  Bohemian  parti¬ 
sans  within  the  limits  which  the  apologists  of  the  council 
mark  out.2  Hus  himself  plainly  declares  his  under¬ 
standing  of  the  matter  to  have  been,  that,  if  he  should 
decline  to  abide  by  the  sentence  of  the  council,  the 
emperor  would  remit  him  in  safety  to  Bohemia,  there  to 
be  judged  by  the  king  and  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  ; 
he  complains  that  the  safe-conduct  had  been  violated,  and 
mentions  warnings  which  he  had  received  against  trusting 
to  it a — warnings  which  were  suggested,  not  by  any  idea 
that  the  instrument  itself  might  be  defective,  but  by  the 
apprehension  that  it  might  be  treacherously  set  aside. 

That  this  must  be  explained  away  by  speaking  of  Hus 
as  inconsistent,  is,  like  the  denial  of  Sigismund’s  having 
blushed  on  being  reminded  of  the  safe-conduct, b  a  neces¬ 
sity  of  the  cause  which  is  to  be  defended. c  And  how, 
unless  there  was  some  deception  in  the  case,  should  the 
king  of  Aragon  and  the  council  have  asserted  principles 
which  would  justify  the  blackest  perfidy  towards  one 
who  was  accused  of  heterodoxy  ?  d  Why  should  it  have 
been  necessary  to  urge  that  a  safe-conduct  could  not 
protect  a  heretic,  unless  Sigismund,  as  well  as  Hus,  had 
supposed  that  the  document  in  question  would  avail  ? 
Why  should  the  council  have  attempted  to  get  over  it  by 
the  false  and  unsuccessful  assertion  that  Hus  had  not 
received  it  until  a  fortnight  after  his  arrest  ?e  Why,  if 
the  safe-conduct  was  not  supposed  to  assure  the  safety 
of  Hus  at  Constance,  as  well  as  on  the  way,  were  such 
efforts  made  to  extort  the  recal  of  it  from  the  emperor  ? 

But,  although  the  means  by  which  his  condemnation 
was  brought  about  were  iniquitous,  and  although  there 

z  See  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  188,  208-9,  ready  to  die  for  his  faith.  Hefele,  vii. 
212  ;  Theob.  31 ;  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  1632.  225. 

a  Ep.  70.  b  See  p.  375.  d  See  p.  358. 

c  The  proof  of  inconsistency  is  drawn  e  See  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  212  ;  Hefele, 

from  Kus’s  declarations  that  he  was  vii.  132. 


3So 


CASE  OF  HUS. 


Book  VIII. 


was  much  to  blame  in  the  circumstances  of  his  trial,  we 
can  hardly  wonder  at  the  condemnation  itself,  according 
to  the  principles  of  his  age.  Hus  set  out  from  Bohemia 
with  a  confident  expectation  of  being  able  to  maintain  his 
soundness  in  the  faith ;  yet  it  is  not  easy  to  suppose  such  a 
result  possible,  if  the  nature  of  the  tribunal  be  considered. 
The  attestations  of  orthodoxy  which  he  carried  with  him 
were  probably  in  part  influenced  by  the  desire  of  the 
authors  to  clear  their  country  from  the  imputations  which 
had  been  cast  on  it,  and  were  therefore  not  likely  to  tell 
strongly  in  his  favour.  In  every  point,  except  that  of  the 
eucharistic  doctrine,  Hus  was  but  an  echo  of  Wyclif, 
whose  opinions  had  long  been  proscribed — whose  English 
followers  had  been  condemned  to  the  stake  by  the  church 
and  the  state  alike.  He  did  not,  seemingly,  understand 
how  greatly  his  principles  were  opposed,  not  only  to 
the  system  of  the  Roman  court,  but  to  the  very  being 
of  the  hierarchy.1  Much  of  his  language  sounded  very 
dangerous  :  and  if  the  sense,  when  explained  by  him,  was 
more  harmless  than  it  seemed,  it  might  reasonably  be  asked 
what  likelihood  there  was  that  this  sense  would  be  under¬ 
stood  by  the  simple  hearers  to  whom  the  words  had  been 
addressed.  It  would  seem  that  his  demeanour  had  in  it 
something  which  suggested  the  suspicion  of  obstinacy  or 
evasion  ;  and  his  continual  professions  of  willingness  to 
renounce  his  opinions,  if  he  could  be  convinced  that 
they  were  wrong,  must  have  appeared  to  his  judges  as 
merely  nugatory ;  for  no  one  surely  would  avow  that  he 
deliberately  prefers  error  to  truth.8 

At  the  time  when  Hus  set  out  from  Prague,  his  old 
associate  Jerome  was  absent  on  one  of  those  expeditions 
in  which  his  religious  zeal  and  his  love  of  adventure  alike 
found  a  frequent  exercise.  On  learning,  at  his  return, 

f  Palacky,  III.  i.  331-2.  «  See  Gerson,  i.  33,  36-7. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415.  JEROME  AT  CONSTANCE. 


381 


April  7. 


the  fact  of  his  friend’s  imprisonment,  Jerome  resolved  to 
join  him  at  Constance,  where  he  arrived  on  the  4th  of 
April  1415A  Finding  that  Hus  had  as  yet  been  unable 
to  obtain  a  hearing,  he  withdrew  to  a  little  town  in  the 
neighbourhood,  and  publicly  announced  by  a  placard  his 
readiness  to  defend  his  faith,  if  the  council  would  grant 
him  a  safe-conduct  for  going  and  returning ; 
and  he  added  that,  if  he  should  be  convicted 
of  heresy,  he  was  willing  to  bear  the  punishment.1  But 
as  his  petition  was  refused,  he  complied  with  the  solicita¬ 
tions  of  his  friends,  and  set  out  towards  Bohemia,  carrying 
with  him  letters  testimonial  from  his  countrymen  who 
were  at  Constance.k  The  council,  however,  at  its  sixth 
session,  cited  him  to  answer  for  himself;  he 
was  arrested,  and  was  carried  back  in  chains 
to  Constance,1  where  at  length  the  council  granted  him 
a  safe-conduct,  but  with  the  significant  reservation,  “  as 
much  as  is  in  us,  and  as  the  orthodox  faith  shall  require, 
yet  saving  justice.”111  On  the  23rd  of  May,  Jerome, 
immediately  after  his  arrival,  and  laden  as  he  was  with 
heavy  chains,  was  examined  before  a  general  congregation 
of  the  council.  Men  who  had  been  acquainted  with  his 
old  adventures  at  Vienna  and  Heidelberg,  at  Paris  and 
Cologne,  gave  evidence  against  him ;  among  them  was 
Gerson,  who  told  him  that  at  Paris  his  conceit  of  his 
eloquence  had  led  him  to  disturb  the  university  by  many 


April  24. 


Hus,  etc.,  Opera,  ii.  349;  V.  d. 
Hardt,  iv.  93. 

1  Hus,  etc..  Opera,  ii.  349*  ;  V.  d. 
Hardt,  iv.  104  ;  Theob.  26. 

k  Hus,  etc.,  Opera,  ii.  349 ;  V.  d. 
Hardt,  iv.  134;  Palacky,  III.  i.  340. 

1  V.  d. Hardt,  iv.  1x9,  146,  216;  Hus, 
etc.,  Opera,  ii.  349*;  Hefele,  vii.  114. 
See  a  letter  from  the  duke  of  Bavaria  to 
the  council,  and  the  council’s  thanks  to 
him,  in  Dollinger,  Beitr.  zur  Cultur- 
gesch.  ii.  318,  321. 

m  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  119.  The  last 


words  are  wanting  in  some  M SS.  See 
Lenfant,  i.  180,  who  remarks  that  there 
was  no  such  reservation  in  the  safe- 
conduct  granted  to  Hus,  and  tha*,  if 
there  had  been,  he  would  not  have 
ventured  to  go  to  Constance.  On  the 
other  hand,  Cochlseus  coolly  says, 
'*  Qualis  et  Joanni  Hus  datus  fuisse 
creditur.  Quod  si  rex  Sigismundus  in 
suo  conductu  ea  cautela  usus  non  fuit 
concilium  tamen  declaravit,  aliter  con- 
ductum  hsereticis  dari  non  debere.”  72. 


JEROME  OF  PRAGUE 


Book  VIII. 


182 


scandalous  propositions  as  to  universals  and  ideas.”  At 
the  end  of  the  day  he  was  committed  to  the  care  of  the 
archbishop  of  Riga,  and  was  imprisoned  in  a  tower,  where 
he  was  chained  more  cruelly  than  before,  and  for  two 
days  was  kept  on  a  diet  of  bread  and  water.  At  the  end 
of  that  time,  however,  Peter  Mladenovicz  discovered  the 
place  of  his  confinement,  and  was  allowed  to  supply  him 
with  better  nourishment.0 

After  having  been  subjected  to  several  examinations, 
Jerome,  worn  out  by  the  hardships  of  his  imprisonment, 
was  brought  on  the  nth  of  September  to  condemn  the 
errors  imputed  to  Wyclif  and  Hus — with  the  reservation 
that,  although  mistaken  and  offensive,  they  were  not 
heretical — that  he  did  not  commit  himself  to  the  truth 
of  the  imputations,  and  that  he  intended  no  disrespect 
to  the  characters  of  the  teachers,  or  to  the  truths  which 
they  had  delivered.15  This  qualified  submission,  how¬ 
ever,  was  not  enough  for  the  council ;  and  at  the  nine¬ 
teenth  general  session,  on  the  23rd  of  September,  a  fresh 
declaration  was  extorted  from  him,  in  which  he  more 
explicitly  abjured  the  tenets  of  Wyclif  and  Hus,  and 
even  included  in  the  abjuration  an  opinion  as  to  the 
reality  of  universals.q  At  this  same  session  it  was 
decreed,  with  an  exact  reference  to  the  circumstances 
of  Hus’s  case,  that  no  safe-conduct  granted  by  any 
secular  prince,  by  whatsoever  sanction  it  might  have 
been  confirmed,  should  prejudice  the  catholic  faith  or 
the  church’s  jurisdiction,  so  as  so  hinder  the  competent 
spiritual  tribunal  from  inquiring  into  and  duly  punishing 
the  errors  of  heretics  or  persons  charged  with  heresy, 
even  although  such  persons  might  have  been  induced  to 

n  Narratio,  ap.  Hus,  ii.  350*  ;  V.  d.  p  Hus,  etc.,  Opera,  ii.  351  ;  Doc. 
Hardt,  iv.  216-18;  Byzyn.  in  Ludewig,  Nos.  88-9;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  498;  Th. 
vi.  132-3.  Niem,  ib.  ii.  415  ;  Th.  de  Vrie,  ib.  L 

0  Narratio,  1.  c.  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  171-2. 

218  ;  Poggius,  ib.  iii.  69.  1  Ib.  iv.  501-14. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415-16.  AT  CONSTANCE. 


3£>3 


present  themselves  at  the  place  of  judgment  by  reliance 
on  the  safe-conduct,  and  otherwise  would  not  have 
appeared ;  and  that  the  granter  of  such  a  document, 
if  he  had  done  his  part  in  other  respects,  was  in  no 
way  further  boundd  By  another  document  (which, 
however,  may  perhaps  have  been  nothing  more  than  a 
draft)  it  is  declared  that  in  the  matter  of  Hus  the  king 
of  the  Romans  had  done  his  duty,  and  that  no  one 
should  speak  against  him  under  pain  of  being  held  guilty 
of  favouring  heresy  and  of  treason.8 

Jerome,  by  abjuring  the  opinions  which  had  been 
imputed  to  him,  had  entitled  himself  to  liberty ;  but, 
although  cardinal  d’Ailly  and  others  insisted  on  this, 
suspicions  as  to  the  sincerity  of  the  prisoner’s  recanta¬ 
tion  arose,  and  were  strengthened  by  a  tract  which 

Gerson  put  forth  on  the  subject  of  “  Pro-  ^ 

•  J  Oct*  29  141^* 

testation  and  Revocation  in  Matters  of  ~T 

Faith.” 1  Fresh  charges,  derived  from  Bohemia,  were 

urged  against  him  by  Palecz  and  Michael  de  Causis; 

and  when  d’Ailly,  Zabarella,  and  others,  indignantly 

resigned  their  office  as  judges,  a  new  commission  was 

appointed,  before  which  Jerome  was  again  April— May, 

examined.11  He  was  accused  of  various  out-  H*6- 


r  “  Nec  sic  promittentem  cum  alias 
fecerit  quod  in  ipso  est  ex  hoc  in  aliquo 
remansisse  obligatum.”  (V.  d.  Hardt, 
iv.  521.)  These  words  do  not  occur  in 
all  MSS.,  and  the  object  of  them  is 
evidently  not  to  exhort  the  giver  of  a 
safe-conduct  to  exertion,  but  to  quiet 
his  conscience  in  allowing  himself  to 
be  overruled.  Bp.  Hefele’s  strong  lan¬ 
guage  of  reprobation  against  Gieseler, 
as  having  misrepresented  the  council 
on  this  point  (see  Giesel.  II.  iv.  418  ; 
Hefele,  vii.  227-8)  appears  to  me  very 
unjust.  [And  in  this  I  find  that  Prof. 
Lechler  concurs,  ii.  230.]  Martin  V. 
wrote  to  Alexander,  duke  of  Lithuania, 
in  1422 — “  Scito  te  fidem  dare  hsere- 
ticis  violatoribus  fidei  sanctse  non  po- 


tuisse,  et  peccare  mortaliter  si  servabis, 
quia  fidelis  ad  infidelem  nulla  potest 
esse  communio.”  Rayn.  1422.  22. 

8  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  521.  See  Schrockh, 
xxxiv.  664-5  ;  Hefele,  vii.  228.  Lech¬ 
ler,  ii.  130. 

*  Opp.  i.  21-27  J  or  V.  d.  Hardt,  iii. 
39,  seqq.  Bp.  Hefele  says  that  Gerson 
in  this  had  no  thought  of  Jerome,  and 
that  the  tract  was  meant  only  against 
the  bishop  of  Arras,  who,  in  his  ad¬ 
vocacy  of  John  Petit  (see  below),  was 
accustomed  to  make  great  general 
protestations  (vii.  240).  But  Schwab 
refers  it  to  both.  599,  630. 

u  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  634 ;  Lenfant,  i. 
499,  546. 


3^4 


Jerome’s  defence. 


Book  VIII. 


rages  against  monks  and  friars  ; x  of  having  denied  tran- 
substantiation ;  y  of  having  caused  the  canon  of  the  mass 
to  be  translated  or  paraphrased  into  Bohemian  verse,  so 
that  mechanics  supposed  themselves  able  to  consecrate 
by  chanting  it ;  *  of  having  in  the  course  of  his  travels 
allied  himself  with  the  Russian  schismatics  in  opposition 
to  the  Latins  ;  a  of  having  lived  luxuriously  and  riotously 
while  in  prison. b  Some  of  these  charges  Jerome  denied;0 
and  in  his  answers  he  showed  much  dexterity  and  readi¬ 
ness,  not  unmixed  with  asperity  and  contempt  towards 
his  opponents.*1  At  his  final  examination,  being  allowed 
26  t0  ^e^en<^  himself,  he  delivered  an  eloquent 
speech.  The  display  of  authorities  which  he 
produced  for  his  opinions  excited  admiration  in  those 
who  considered  that  for  340  days  he  had  been  immured 
in  a  gloomy  dungeon.e  He  related  the  course  of  his  life 
and  studies.  He  explained  the  case  of  the  university 
of  Prague,  and  the  unfair  influence  which  the  Germans 
had  exercised  in  it.f  He  declared  that  no  act  of  his 
life  had  caused  him  such  remorse  as  his  abjuration 
of  Hus  and  Wyclif,g  with  whom  he  now  desired  to  make 
common  cause  in  all  things,  except  Wyclif’s  doctrine  of 
the  eucharist.11  He  professed  himself  ready  to  share  the 
fate  of  Hus,  whose  offence  he  represented  as  having 
consisted,  not  in  any  deviation  from  the  faith  of  the 
church,  but  in  his  having  attacked  the  abuses  and  cor¬ 
ruptions  of  the  hierarchy.  He  replied  with  courage  and 


x  E.g.,  that  he  had  thrown  a  Domi¬ 
nican  who  had  preached  against  Wyclif 
into  the  Moldau,  holding  him  by  a  rope, 
and  requiring  him  to  own  that  Wyclif 
was  a  holy  and  evangelical  preacher. 
The  friar,  it  is  said,  would  have  been 
drowned,  but  that  he  was  rescued  by 
friends.  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  667. 
y  lb.  668. 

1  “  Cantilenas  et  carmina  continentes 
in  sensu  et  effectu  verba  canonis."  Ib. 


669.  a  Ib.  678-80. 

b  Ib.  690.  c  Ib.  634,  751-2. 

d  Thus  he  said  to  a  Dominican, 
“  Tace,  hypocrita  ! "  and  of  another 
opponent  he  never  spoke  except  as  a 
dog  or  an  ass.  Poggius  in  V.  d.  Hardt, 
iii.  66. 
e  Ib.  69. 
f  Ib  iv.  757-8. 

8  Hus,  etc.,  Opera,  ii.  352*. 
h  See  Hefele,  vii.  231. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1415-16. 


HIS  DEATH, 


3S5 


readiness  to  the  many  interruptions  with  which  he  was 
assailed ;  and  the  speech  concluded  with  a  commemora¬ 
tion  of  worthies,  both  heathen  and  scriptural,  who  had 
laid  down  their  lives  for  the  truth.1 

Urgent  attempts  were  still  made  to  persuade  Jerome 
to  fall  back  on  the  recantation  which  he  had  formerly 
made ;  Zabarella  especially  showed  a  friendly  interest  in 
him,  and  visited  him  in  prison  for  the  purpose  of  en¬ 
treating  him  to  save  himself.k  But  all  such  efforts  were 
fruitless,  and  Jerome  suffered  at  the  stake  on  the  30th 
of  May  1416,  enduring  his  agony  with  a  firmness  which 
extorted  the  admiration  of  men  so  remote  from  any  sym¬ 
pathy  with  his  character  as  the  scholar  Poggio  Bracciolini 
(who  was  himself  a  witness  of  the  scene)  and  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  politician  ^Eneas  Sylvius  Piccolomini.1 

On  the  4th  of  July  1415,  two  days  before  the  death  of 
Hus,  Gregory  XII.,  the  most  sincere  of  the  rival  popes 
in  desiring  the  reunion  of  the  church,  resigned  his 
dignity.  For  this  purpose  he  had  given  a  commission 
to  Charles  Malatesta,  lord  of  Rimini,  whose  labours  at 


i  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  757-8  ;  Poggius, 
ib.  iii.  67-9. 
k  Poggius,  ib.  70. 

1  “Nemo  philosophorum  tam  forti 
animo  mortem  pertulisse  traditur  quam 
isti  [Hus  and  Jerome]  incendium.” 
Ain.  Sylv.  Hist.  Boh.  c.  36.  See 
Poggio’s  letter  to  Leonard  Aretin,  in 
V.  d.  Hardt,  iii.  70-1 ;  or  Doc.  No.  100; 
Shepherd’s  Life  of  Poggio,  69 ;  V.  d. 
Hardt,  iv.  770 ;  Byzyn.  in  Ludewig, 
vi.  137-41.  Poggio’s  letter  is  strangely 
plagiarised  by  Redusio  (Chron.  Tar- 
visin.  in  Murat,  xix.  829),  and  it  has 
suggested  a  forged  imitation,  in  which 
Poggio  is  made  to  relate  the  martyrdom 
of  Hus  (see  Hefele,  vii.  213).  At  Je¬ 
rome’s  death,  as  at  that  of  Hus,  the 
bishop  of  Lodi  (a  Dominican)  preached 
a  sermon,  in  which  he  abused  the  two 
as  obscure  plebeians  and  rustics  who 
had  dared  to  disturb  the  peace  of 

VOL.  VII. 


Bohemia — a  reproach  which,  so  far  as 
Jerome’s  social  station  was  concerned, 
was  untrue.  He  taunts  Jerome  with 
the  mildness  of  his  treatment — e.g., 
“Tortus  non  fuisti  ;  et  utinam  fuisses, 
quia  vel  sic  humiliatus  omnes  errores 
tuos  penitus  evomuisses.”  (V.  d. 
Hardt,  iii.  54,  59,  60.)  To  this  Jerome 
replied  in  a  long  speech,  exposing  the 
bishop’s  misrepresentations.  (Ib.  iv. 
763.)  Theodore  of  Vrie’s  account  of 
Jerome’s  death  is  remarkable,  and  the 
more  so  as  the  Saviour  is  the  supposed 
speaker.  (Ib.  i.  202-3  ;  cf.  Theod. 
Niem,  ib.  ii.  454.)  Of  Jerome,  as  of 
Hus,  the  story  of  “  O  sancta  simpli- 
citas  !  ”  is  told.  (Schrockh,  xxxiv. 
668.)  There  is  also  a  story  (no  doubt 
made  after  the  event)  that  he  appealed 
to  Almighty  God,  “  ut  coram  eo  cen¬ 
tum  annis  revolutis  respondeatis.” 
Hus,  Opera,  ii.  357. 


25 


RESIGNATION  OF  GREGORY  XII. 


Book  VIII. 


386 


Pisa  and  elsewhere  for  the  healing  of  the  schism"1  have 
already  been  mentioned ;  and,  in  order  to  avoid  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  council  as  having  been  called  by 
John  XXIII.,  he  affected  to  regard  it  as  assembled  by 
the  emperor  alone,  and  to  add  his  own  citation  as  pope, 
that  it  might  entertain  the  proposed  business."  Mala- 
testa  accordingly  appeared  at  the  fourteenth  session,  and 
formally  executed  the  act  of  resignation;0  whereupon  the 
council  decreed  that  no  one  should  proceed  to  choose 
a  pope  without  its  sanction,  and  that  it  should  not  be 
dissolved  until  after  an  election  should  have  been  made.p 
The  ex-pope  became  cardinal-bishop  of  Porto,  and  legate 
for  life  in  the  Mark  of  Ancona,  with  precedence  over  all 
the  other  members  of  the  colleger  His  cardinals  were 
allowed  to  retain  their  dignities;1-  and  two  years  later, 
while  the  council  was  yet  sitting,  Angelo  Corario  died  at 
the  age  of  ninety. s 

Benedict  XIII.  was  still  to  be  dealt  with.  Aragon 
and  Scotland  continued  to  adhere  to  him,  and  his  pre¬ 
tensions  were  unabated.  He  had  proposed  a  meeting 
with  Sigismund  at  Nice,  and  John  XXIII.  had  en¬ 
deavoured  to  avert  this  by  offering  to  confer  in  person 
with  his  rival ;  but  the  council,  remembering  the  failure 
of  the  conference  of  Savona,  had  refused  its  consent.1 
It  was  now  resolved  that  the  emperor,  as  representative 
of  the  council,  should  treat  with  Benedict.  On  the  15th 
of  July,  Sigismund,  kneeling  before  the  high  altar  of  the 
cathedral,  received  the  solemn  benediction  of  the  assem¬ 
bly;"  and  three  days  later  x  he  set  out  with  four  cardinals 

m  See  his  letters  in  Martene,  Coll.  9  lb.  474-81;  Th.  de  Vrie,  168,  170. 

Ampl.  vii.  314,  seqq.  ;  Hefele,  vi.  862,  r  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  376. 

seqq.  *  Oct.  18,  1417.  Lenf.  i.  388;  He* 

"  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  366,  seqq.,  371  ;  fele,  vii.  184. 

Th.  de  Vrie,  163,  167  ;  Antonin.  479  ;  1  See  p.  245.  Th.  Niem,  in  V.  d 

Lenfant,  i.  382  ;  Hefele,  vii.  183.  Hardt,  ii.  395-6;  Th.  de  Vrie,  ib.  i.  207. 

0  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  346,  375,  380 ;  Th.  u  Ib.  iv.  468-75  ;  Th.  Niem,  ib.  ii.  415. 

Niem,  ib.  ii.  410.  p  Ib.  375,  378.  x  There  is  a  letter  from  Gerson  and 


Chap.  VIII.  a. D.  1415-16.  BENEDICT  XIII.  HOLDS  OUT.  387 


for  Perpignan,  where  he  had  invited  Benedict  to  meet 
him.y  At  Narbonne  he  was  joined  by  Ferdinand  of 
Aragon,  whose  ambassadors  had  been  in  treaty  with  the 
council.2  But  at  Perpignan  he  found  himself  disappointed. 
Benedict  had  taken  offence  at  being  addressed  as  car¬ 
dinal,  whereas  he  held  himself  to  be  the  sole  legitimate 
pope ;  nay,  even  as  a  cardinal,  he  asserted  that,  being 
the  only  one  who  had  been  promoted  to  the  sacred 
college  before  the  schism,  he  was  entitled  to  nominate  a 
pope  by  his  own  voice  alone.3.  In  accordance  with  the 
letter  of  an  agreement,  he  remained  at  Perpignan  through¬ 
out  the  month  of  June  ;  but  when  the  last  day  of  that 
month  came  to  an  end  at  midnight,  he  immediately  left 
the  place,  and  pronounced  Sigismund  contumacious  for 
having  failed  to  appear.b  On  the  19th  of  August  he 
was  at  Narbonne,  where  he  condescended  to  state  his 
terms  to  the  emperor’s  representatives.0  But  these  and 
other  proposals  on  the  part  of  Benedict  were  so  ex¬ 
travagant  that  it  was  impossible  to  accept  them ; d  and 
Benedict,  after  some  movements,  shut  himself  up  within 
the  rocky  fortress  of  Pehiscola,  in  Valencia,  where  the 
archbishop  of  Tours  and  others  sought  an  interview 
with  him,  but  were  unable  to  persuade  him  to  resign.e 
Sigismund  succeeded  in  detaching  from  him  the  king  of 


d’Ailly  to  Benedict,  entreating  him  to 
resign,  and  dated  on  July  18,  in  Bekyn- 
ton,  Ep.  241.  A  sermon  by  Gerson 
(ii.  273),  in  which  the  power  of  the 
council  over  popes  is  strongly  asserted, 
was  not  delivered  before  the  emperor’s 
departure  (as  has  often  been  said),  but 
three  days  after  it  (Jul.  21).  See 
Schwab,  520. 

y  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  265  ;  Th.  Niem, 
ib.  ii.  415.  There  is  a  narrative  by  the 
archbishop  of  Tours  in  V.  d.  Hardt, 
ii.  523,  seqq.  Sigismund  was  obliged 
to  borrow  for  the  costs  of  his  journey. 
Aschb.  ii.  136. 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  47,  264,  305 ;  Th. 


Niem,  1.  c. 

a  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  488,  529.  He  had 
said  something  like  this  to  Gregory’s 
envoys  in  1407.  Mon.  Sandion.  iii. 
530- 

b  Hefele,  vii.  244  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii. 
522. 

c  Martene,  Coll.  Ampl.  vii  1208; 
V.  d.  Hardt,  II.  No.  xvi. 

d  Ib.  ii.  490,  seqq.,  526;  Martene, 
Thes.  ii.  1647-50. 

6  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  534-5.  He  had 
been  at  Pehiscola  as  early  as  1413. 
See  National  MSS.  of  Scotland,  ii. 
No.  30. 


388 


sigismund’s  movements. 


Book  VIII. 


Aragon,  with  other  princes  who  had  thus  far  supported 
him ; f  and  these,  in  person  or  by  their  representatives, 
formally  renounced  him  at  Narbonne  on  the  13th  of 
December  1415^  The  act  was  publicly  declared  at 
Perpignan  on  the  Epiphany  following h  by  the  great 
Dominican  preacher  St.  Ahncent  Ferrer,  in  w'hose  reputa¬ 
tion  for  sanctity  the  cause  of  the  Spanish  pope  had  found 
one  of  its  strongest  supports,  but  who  now,  in  disgust  at 
Benedict's  obstinacy,  turned  against  him,  and  zealously 
exerted  himself  to  promote  the  reunion  of  the  church.1 

Sigismund  then  proceeded  to  visit  the  courts  of  France 
and  of  England,  endeavouring  to  reconcile  the  enmity 
which  had  lately  arrayed  the  nations  against  each  other  on 
the  field  of  Agincourt  (Oct.  25,  1415),  and  to  unite  west¬ 
ern  Christendom  in  a  league  against  the  Turks  ;k  and  on 
the  27th  of  January  in  the  following  year  he  reappeared 
at  Constance,  where  he  was  received  by  the 
a.d.  1417.  councp  great  demonstrations  of  honour.1 


f  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  538-9  ;  Th.  Niem, 
ib.  ii.  423-4,  432,  434. 

*  It  is  said  that  he  sent  the  king  of 
Aragon  a  bull  of  anathema  and  depo¬ 
sition.  Martene,  Thes.  ii.  1660. 

h  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  554  ;  Hefele,  vii. 
*47-9- 

*  Theodoric  of  Niem -says  that  Vin¬ 
cent  was  reported  to  have  preached 
against  Benedict  even  “  quod  juste 
persequendus  sit  usque  ad  mortem  ab 
omnibus  Christianis,  et  persequens  aut 
interficiens  eum  mereatur.”  V.  d. 
Hardt,  ii.  431-2.  Cf.  ib.  522,  564 ; 
Antonin.  480  ;  Mariana,  xx.  7  ;  Len- 
fant,  i.  526. 

k  At  Paris  he  gave  great  offence  by 
taking  the  king's  seat  in  the  parliament, 
and  by  conferring  knighthood  on  one  of 
the  parties  in  a  suit,  in  order  to  qualify 
him  for  prosecuting  it — “  Car  le  roy  est 
empereur  en  ce  royaume,  et  ne  le  tient 
que  de  Dieu  et  1’espee  seulement,  et  non 
d ’autre.”  (Juv.  des  Ursins,  330.)  Be¬ 
fore  landing  at  Dover,  he  was  required 


to  profess  that  he  did  not  come  as 
emperor.  (Pauli,  v.  132  ;  Aschb.  ii.  162.) 
For  his  reception  in  England,  see  Wal- 
singh.  ii.  305.  Archbishop  Chichele 
ordered  prayers  to  be  put  up  for  his 
success  in  endeavouring  to  establish 
the  unity  of  the  church,  Aug.  2,  1416 
(Rymer,  ix.  377).  He  made  a  very 
favourable  impression  in  England 
(Gesta  Henr.  V.  p.  104) ;  but  such 
were  his  necessities  that  he  pawned  the 
English  king’s  gifts  at  Bruges.  (Pauli, 
v.  14 1 ;  Aschb.  ii.  170.)  His  behaviour 
in  England  gave  further  offence  to  the 
French.  Bulaeus,  v.  316. 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1089.  There  is  a 
letter  in  English  from  John  Forrester 
to  Henry  V.,  describing  the  emperor’s 
return.  The  bishop  of  Salisbury  was 
the  first  to  get  possession  of  the  pulpit, 
in  order  to  offer  his  congratulations, 
to  the  exclusion  of  cardinal  d’Ailly  ; 
and  the  English  representatives  were 
treated  with  great  honour  by  Sigis¬ 
mund.  It  is  said  that  the  bishops  of 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1416-17.  PROCESS  AGAINST  BENEDICT.  389 


In  the  meantime  the  representatives  of  the  Spanish 

and  Portuguese  kingdoms  had  been  admitted  into 

the  council  as  a  fifth  nation;111  the  agreement  of  Nar- 

bonne  was  confirmed,11  and  measures  were  urged  forward 

against  Benedict.  Articles  were  drawn  up,  in  which  the 

charge  against  him  was  grounded  chiefly  on  nov>  5. 2 

his  breach  of  his  engagements  as  to  resig-  1416. 

nation,0  and  he  was  cited  to  appear  within  a  certain 

time.p  The  envoys  who  were  intrusted  with  the  delivery 

of  the  citation  at  Peniscola  found  him  angry 

•  .  J  fin.  22j  1417. 

and  obstinate,  and  brought  back  nothing  but 
evasions  and  pretexts  for  delay.q  After  having  been 
repeatedly  cited  in  due  form  at  the  door  of  the  cathedral, 
he  was  pronounced  contumacious  on  the  first  of  April.1- 
Further  articles  were  drawn  up,  and,  after  long  formal 
proceedings,8  sentence  of  deposition  was  pronounced 
against  him,  as  having  been  guilty  of  perjury, 
of  scandal  to  the  whole  church,  of  favouring 
and  nourishing  schism,  and  of  heresy,  inasmuch  as  he 
had  violated  that  article  of  the  faith  which  speaks  of 
“  one  holy  catholic  church.” t  The  delivery  of  this 
judgment  was  followed  by  a  jubilant  chant  of  Tc  Deum ; 


July  26. 


Chester  [ i.e .  Coventry]  and  Salisbury 
are  resolved  to  “suive  the  reformation 
in  the  kyrk,  in  the  hed  and  in  the  mem¬ 
bers.”  (Rymer,  ix.  434  ;  cf.  Ulr.  v. 
Reichenthal,  in  Marmor,  44.)  In  ex¬ 
pectation  of  the  emperor’s  return,  the 
English,  on  Jan.  24,  gave  a  banquet 
to  the  magistrates  of  Constance  and 
others,  which  was  followed  by  a  play 
on  the  subject  of  the  Nativity — this 
being  the  first  instance  of  such  a  per¬ 
formance  in  Germany;  and  the  play 
was  repeated  before  the  emperor  on 
the  31st  of  January.  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv. 
1088-9,  1091. 

111  Sept. — Oct.  1416.  V.  d.  Hardt, 
iv.  909  ;  Th.  de  Vrie,  ib.  i.  204. 

u  Ib.  iv.  586,  seqq. 


0  Ib.  956-67,  980-95. 

P  Ib.  992  ;  Th.  Vrie,  211. 

1  Hard.  iv.  1124-9,  seqq.,  1148; 
Martene,  Thes.  ii.  1169.  The  envoys 
were  black  monks ;  and  Benedict,  on 
being  informed  of  their  arrival,  said 
“  Synodalescorvosaudiamus.”  When 
told  of  this,  one  of  them  remarked 
“  Minime  mirum  videri  debet,  si  corvi 
ad  dejectum  cadaver  accedimus.”  V. 
d.  Hardt,  iv.  1145. 

r  Ib.  i.  1132  ;  iv.  1206,  1214,  1220, 
1224-31. 

8  See  ib.  1230,  seqq.  ;  1270,  1280, 
1294,  1310,  1315,  1317,  1332-3,  1335-6, 
i35i- 

4  Ib.  1367,  1373,  seqq.  ;  Th.  Vrie 
214  ;  Hefele,  vii.  313. 


39° 


COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


Book  VIII. 


the  bells  of  the  churches  were  rung,  and  the  emperor 
ordered  that  the  sentence  should  be  proclaimed  with 
the  sound  of  trumpets  throughout  the  streets  of  Con¬ 
stance.11 

Thus  the  papacy  was  considered  to  be  entirely  vacant, 
as  the  three  who  had  pretended  to  it  had  all  been  set  aside. 
But  the  question  now  arose,  whether  the  council  should 
next  proceed  to  the  election  of  a  new  pope,  or  to  discuss 
the  reformation  of  the  church,  which  had  been  much 
agitated  during  the  time  of  the  emperor’s  absence. x  On 
the  one  hand  it  was  urged  that,  as  the  church  had  long 
been  suffering  from  the  want  of  an  acknowledged  head, 
the  papacy  should  be  tilled  without  delay.  On  the  other 
hand  it  was  represented  that  the  reforming  designs  of  the 
council  of  Pisa  had  been  ineffectual  because  reform  had 
been  postponed  to  the  election  of  a  pope ;  that,  since  a 
reformation  of  the  church  ought  to  include  the  head  as 
well  as  the  members,  a  pope,  by  exerting  his  influence 
on  those  who  naturally  desired  to  stand  well  with  him, 
might  be  able  to  put  a  stop  to  any  movement  for  reform ; 
that  the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  after  the  pollutions  which  it 
had  lately  undergone,  ought  to  be  cleansed,  before  any 
man,  even  the  holiest,  could  sit  in  it  without  fear  of  con¬ 
tamination.5"  The  emperor,  supported  by  the  German 
and  English  nations,  urged  that  the  council  should  enter 
on  the  question  of  reform.2  The  cardinals,  with  the 
Italians  in  general,51  pressed  for  the  election  of  a  pope, 
and  drew  to  their  side  the  Spaniards,  who  were  new  to 
the  affairs  of  the  council,  and  the  French,  whose  eager¬ 
ness  for  reform  was  now  overpowered  by  their  enmity 
against  the  English.11  The  contest  was  keenly  carried 

u  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1377.  a  Pileus,  archbishop  of  Genoa,  how- 

x  lb.  556,  1335,  1305.  Various  ever,  spoke  strongly  in  favour  of  reform, 

schemes  are  printed  in  vol.  i.  Ib.,  I.  p.  xv. ;  iv.  1397. 

y  Ib.  iv.  1418-24.  b  Ib.  1395-6,  1415,  etc.;  Milman,  vi 

1  Ib.  1335,  1354,  1395.  62;  Aschb.  ii.  267. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1417. 


DISCUSSIONS. 


391 


on,  both  with  tongue  and  with  pen.  Prayers  were  put 
up  for  the  good  success  of  the  council  in  its  designs, 
sermons  were  preached  in  exposition  of  the  various 
views,0  and  from  each  side  a  formal  protest  was  made 
against  the  course  which  was  proposed  by  the  other  ;d 
while  invidious  imputations  were  freely  cast  on  the 
emperor  and  his  adherents,  as  if,  by  maintaining  that 
the  church  could  be  reformed  without  a  head,  they  made 
themselves  partakers  in  the  heresy  of  Hus.e 

Still  Sigismund  stood  firm,  notwithstanding  the  taunts 
and  insults  which  were  directed  against  him,  until  at 
length  he  found  his  supporters  failing  him.  Such  of  the 
French  and  Italians  as  had  been  with  him  fell  away.f 
By  the  death  of  Hallam,  bishop  of  Salisbury,  on  the  4th 
of  September,  he  lost  his  most  esteemed  auxiliary, g  while 
the  English  were  deprived  of  a  leader  whose  wisdom  and 
moderation  had  guided  them  in  the  difficulties  of  their 
circumstances  ;  and — partly,  it  would  seem,  in  obedience 
to  an  order  from  their  sovereign11 — they  joined  the 
growing  majority.  Two  of  the  most  important  German 
prelates  were  bribed  into  a  like  course ; — the  archbishop 
of  Riga,  who,  having  been  hopelessly  embroiled  with  the 
Teutonic  knights,  was  to  be  translated  by  the  council 
to  Liege ;  and  the  bishop  of  Chur,  to  whom  the  see  of 
Riga  offered  at  once  an  increase  of  dignity  and  an  escape 
from  his  quarrels  with  Frederick  of  Austria.1  Finding 
that  any  further  resistance  would  be  useless,  Sigismund 
yielded  that  the  choice  of  a  pope  should  precede  the 
discussion  of  reform;  but  it  was  stipulated  by  him  and 


c  See  Gerson,  ii.  313;  Schrockh, 
xxxi.  488  ;  Hefele,  vii,  288,  etc. 

d  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  916-20;  iv.  1419-26. 
e  lb.  1415 ;  Mart.  Thes.  ii.  1680-5 ; 
Lenf.  ii.  114  ;  Aschb.  ii.  270. 
f  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1418. 
s  lb.  1414;  Lenf.  ii.  115;  Aschb.  ii. 
274.  For  an  engraving  of  the  memorial 
of  Bp.  Hallam  in  Constance  Cathe¬ 


dral,  with  a  description  by  R.  L.  Pear¬ 
sall,  see  the  Archseologia,  vol.  xxx. 
h  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1426. 

*  lb.  1427 ;  Aschb.  ii.  277.  Boniface 
IX.  had  sold  Riga  to  the  Teutonic  order 
against  the  will  of  the  archbishop. 
Theod-  Niem,  de  Schism,  ii.  16  ;  Vita 
Joh.  XXIII.  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  439. 


COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANCE. 


Book  VIII. 


392 


the  German  ration  that  the  future  pope  should,  in  con¬ 
junction  with  the  council,  make  it  his  first  duty  to  enter 
on  a  reform  of  the  church,  and  that  until  this  should  have 
been  effected  the  council  should  not  be  dissolved. k 

At  the  thirty-ninth  session,  October  9,  1417,  it  was 
decreed  that  a  general  council  should  be  held  within  the 
next  five  years,  and  another  within  the  following  seven 
years  ;  that  within  every  period  of  ten  years  for  the  time 
to  come  there  should  be  a  general  council ;  that  the  pope 
might  shorten  the  interval,  but  might  not  prolong  it ;  and 
that  for  a  sufficient  cause  (such  as  the  occurrence  of  a 
schism)  a  council  might  be  convoked  at  any  time.1  But 
when  the  Germans  desired  that  the  future  pope  should 
be  pledged  to  the  observance  of  these  rules,  they  were 
told  by  the  cardinals  that  a  pope  could  not  be  so  bound.™ 

Dissensions  still  continued  to  vex  the  council.  The 
Aragonese,  on  joining  it,  had  objected  to  the  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  the  English  as  a  nation — maintaining  that  they 
ought  to  be  included  with  the  Germans ; n  and  in  this 
they  were  aided  by  cardinal  d’Ailly,0  whose  patriotism 
showed  itself  on  all  occasions  in  a  vehement  opposition 
to  the  English ;  while  these  stoutly  asserted  the  import¬ 
ance  of  their  nation  and  church  by  somewhat  daring  argu¬ 
ments,  and  put  forward  the  venerable  name  of  Joseph  of 
^  Arimathea  in  opposition  to  that  of  Dionysius 
‘  q)  '  9’  I2'  the  Areopagite.P  The  Castilians  had  contests 


k  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1431.  1  lb. 

m  lb.  1447. 

13  It  need  not  be  said  that  the  out¬ 
lying  countries  of  the  English  nation 
(see  p.  349,  n.  u)  were  not  represented. 
Ulrich  of  Reichenthal  says  that  the 
“  Anglici  et  Scoti,  Engelschen  und 
Hyberni,  das  sind  Schotten,”  were 
originally  made  a  separate  nation  in 
consequence  of  the  non-appearance  of 
the  Spaniards.  (Marmor,  31.)  Cf. 
Engl.  Chronicle,  ed.  Davies,  published 
by  the  Camden  Soc.  p.  44. 


0  E.g.,  De  Eccl.  Potest.,  V.  d. 
Hardt,  vi.  41. 

p  lb.  iv.  952,  965-8,  1026-30  ;  v.  57- 
103  ;  Martene,  Thes.  ii.  1667.  See  a 
letter  from  the  bishop  of  Durham,  in 
Rymer,  ix.  437.  He  mentions  that 
Sigismund  irritated  the  French  by  dis¬ 
playing  the  insignia  of  the  Garter.  An 
incredible  story  of  a  Spanish  bishop 
on  occasion  of  a  question  of  precedence, 
taking  up  an  English  ambassador,  and 
carrying  him  like  a  child,  is  given  on 
Spanish  authority  by  Lenfant,  ii.  59.  . 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1417. 


MEDIATION  OF  BEAUFORT. 


393 


of  their  own  with  the  Aragonese ;  and  they  had  even 
left  Constance,  in  the  belief  that  the  council  was  hope¬ 
lessly  entangled,  when  they  were  brought  back  by  the 
emperor’s  command.  The  cardinals  asked  for  leave  to 
withdraw,  and  met  with  a  refusal ;  Sigismund  is  said 
to  have  intended  to  arrest  some  of  the  most  trouble¬ 
some  among  them ;  and  the  members  of  the  college 
displayed  themselves  in  their  scarlet  hats,  as  a  token  of 
their  readiness  to  become  martyrs  in  the  church’s  cause. q 
In  the  midst  of  these  difficulties  it  was  announced  that 
Henry  Beaufort,  bishop  of  Winchester,  and  uncle  to  the 
king  of  England,  was  at  Ulm,  on  his  way  to  ^ 
the  Holy  Land  ;  and  the  English  representa¬ 
tives  suggested  that  by  his  reputation  and  authority,  by 
his  known  influence  with  the  emperor,  and  by  his  zeal 
for  the  peace  of  the  church,  he  might  be  able  to  appease 
the  differences  which  had  arisen.  The  emperor  with  his 
own  hand  wrote  to  invite  the  bishop  to  Constance, 
where  he  was  received  with  great  honour;  and  by  his 
mediation  and  advice  he  succeeded  in  effecting  a  recon¬ 
ciliation  between  the  parties.1- 

Beaufort  had  recommended  that  the  election  of  a  pope 
should  at  once  be  taken  in  hand ;  and  new  questions 
arose  as  to  the  right  of  sharing  in  it.  Some  wished  to 
exclude  the  cardinals  altogether,  as  having  abused  their 
privilege  in  time  past ;  while  the  cardinals  asserted  that 
the  right  of  voting  belonged  to  them  exclusively,  but 
were  willing  to  concede  that,  on  this  occasion  only, 
representatives  of  the  nations  should  be  associated  with 
them,  and  that  the  choice  should  be  subject  to  the  final 


3  Martene,  Thes.  ii.  1675-8 ;  V.  d. 
Hardt,  iv.  1415-17,  1428. 

r  lb.  1447  ;  Walsingh.  ii.  319  ;  Lenf. 
ii.  134  ;  Hefele,  vii.  321-2.  His  ser¬ 
vices  were  rewarded  by  Martin  V. ,  who 
promoted  him  to  the  cardinalate  in 
petto  on  Nov.  28,  and  made  him  legate 


for  England  and  Ireland.  Against  this 
legation  archbishop  Chichele  remon¬ 
strated,  in  a  letter  to  Henry  V.;  but 
Beaufort  was  received  as  legate  by 
Henry  VI.  Von  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1502. 
See  vol.  iii.  p.  12  ;  Ciacon.  ii.  845  ; 
Hook,  v.  70-4. 


394 


SUBJECTS  FOR  REFORM. 


Book  VIII. 


approbation  of  the  council.55  In  the  meantime  there 
were  discussions  as  to  the  points  in  which  a  reform  was 
desired.  Among  them  were  the  duties  of  the  pope,  and 
the  limits  of  his  authority;  the  prevention  of  double 
elections  to  the  papacy ;  the  composition  of  the  college 
of  cardinals,  in  which  it  seemed  desirable  that  the 
Italians  should  not  be  too  strong  ;l  reservations,  annates, 
expectancies,  commendams,  simony,  dispensations,  non¬ 
residence  ;  the  qualifications  and  duties  of  bishops ;  the 
abuses  of  the  monastic  and  capitular  systems  ;  the  nature 
of  the  causes  that  should  be  treated  in  the  Roman  court ; 
the  question  of  appeals ;  the  offices  of  the  papal  chancery 
and  penitentiary  ;  indulgences  ;  the  alienation  of  church 
property;  the  cause,  for  which  a  pope  might  be  cor¬ 
rected  or  deposed,  and  the  manner  of  procedure  in 
such  cases.u 

Of  these  subjects,  that  of  annates  caused  the  greatest 
difference  of  opinion.  The  cardinals  were  in  favour  of 
the  exaction,  while  the  French  nation  denounced  it  as 
a  novelty  which  dated  only  from  the  pontificate  of  John 
XXII. x  On  this  question,  cardinal  d’Ailly,  who  had 
formerly  been  opposed  to  the  tax,  now  took  part  with 
his  brethren  of  the  college.7  With  regard  to  the  question 
ol  papal  collation  to  benefices,  it  was  remarked  that, 
while  many  bishops,  who  were  usually  supporters  of  the 
papal  interest,  opposed  it  in  this  case  from  a  wish  to 


8  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  586;  iv.  1355,  1448. 
On  October  1, 1416,  d’Ailly  delivered  a 
discourse  exposing  the  extravagances 
of  some  as  to  the  power  of  the  pope, 
and  maintaining  that  the  nations  ought 
to  share  with  the  cardinals  in  the  elec¬ 
tion.  Ib.  iv.  909. 

1  Some  were  even  for  the  abolition  ot 
cardinals  altogether,  as  being  a  class 
instituted  neither  by  the  apostles  nor  by 
councils,  and  detrimental  to  the  church. 
Pet.  de  Alliaco,  De  Reform,  Eccl.  in 
Gerson,  ii.  908. 


u  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1449-52.  A  paper 
by  Zabarella,  ‘  Capita  Agendorum  in 
Cone.  Const.’  (V.  d.  Hardt,  t,  I.  p.  ix.), 
gives  much  information  as  to  the  re¬ 
forms  which  were  desired.  The  writer 
had  died  on  the  26th  of  September. 
V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1429. 

x  Lib.  de  l’Egl.  Gall.  ii.  581,  seqq.; 
Martene,  Thes.  1542-1609 ;  V.  d.  Hardt, 
I.  pt.  xiii.  See  below,  c.  xi.  i.  4. 

y  De  Auctorit.  etc.,  in  Gerson,  ii. 
937  ;  or  V.  d.  Hardt,  vi.  51-6. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1417.  ELECTION  OF  A  POPE. 


395 


recover  patronage  for  their  own  order,  the  representatives 
of  universities  sided  with  the  pope,  as  being  more  likely 
than  the  bishops  to  favour  the  claims  of  learning  in  the 
bestowal  of  preferment.2  In  the  course  of  these  discus¬ 
sions  much  heat  was  occasionally  displayed.  At  one 
meeting,  the  wish  to  delay  the  election  of  a  pope  was 
denounced  as  a  Hussite  heresy,  and  the  emperor,  in 
disgust  at  the  pertinacity  of  the  opposition,  arose  and 
left  the  hall.  As  the  patriarch  of  Antioch  and  others  of 
his  adherents  followed,  a  cry  arose,  “  Let  the  heretics 
go  !  ”  and  Sigismund,  on  being  informed  of  the  insult, 
knew  that  it  was  intended  against  himself.a 

At  length,  on  the  30th  of  October,  the  preliminaries  of 
the  election  were  settled  :  that  six  representatives  of  each 
nation  should  be  associated  with  the  cardinals  as  electors ; 
and  that  a.  majority  of  two-thirds  among  the  cardinals 
and  in  each  nation  should  be  necessary  to  the  choice  of 
a  pope.b  The  day  was  fixed  for  the  8th  of  November, 
when  high  mass  was  celebrated,  and  the  bishop  of  Lodi 
(whose  eloquence  had  been  less  creditably  displayed 
in  the  cases  of  Hus  and  Jerome)  preached  from  the 
text,  “  Eligite  meliorem  ”  c — descanting  on  the  qualities 
requisite  for  the  papacy,  and  exhorting  the  electors  to 
make  choice  of  a  pope  different  from  those  of  the  last 
forty  years — one  worthy  of  the  office  and  bent  on  the 
reform  of  the  church.d  The  electors — twenty-three  car¬ 
dinals  and  thirty  deputies  of  the  nations  e — swore  to  the 
emperor  that  they  would  perform  their  duty  faithfully^ 
and  were  then  shut  up  in  conclave  within  the  Exchange 
of  Constance,  under  the  guardianship  of  the  master  of  the 


z  Hefele,  vii.  317.  Cf.  Mart.  Thes. 
ii.  1686.  Compare  the  complaint  of 
the  university  of  Paris,  above,  p.  239, 
n.  n.  An  English  petition  of  1399  stated 
that  the  statutes  of  provisors  had  ope¬ 
rated  against  the  preferment  of  the 
more  deserving  men.  Art.  28,  Wilkins, 


in.  242. 

a  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1415. 
b  lb.  1448,  1452  ;  Antonin.  483. 
c  “Look  even  out  the  best”  (Eng. 
Version)  II  Kings,  x.  3. 
d  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  931,  seqq. 

6  Ib-  iv.  *473>  H79- 


396 


ELECTION  OF 


Book  VIII. 


knights  of  Rhodes.f  Their  deliberations  lasted  three 

days,  during  which  companies  of  people — Sigismund 

himself,  and  the  highest  ecclesiastical  dignitaries,  among 

them — frequently  gathered  round  the  building,  imploring 

with  prayers,  and  with  hymns  chanted  in  low  tones,  the 

blessing  of  God  on  the  election.5  At  first,  each  nation 

was  disposed  to  set  up  a  candidate  of  its  own  ; h  but 

gradually  this  was  abandoned,  and  on  St.  Martin’s  day 

an  overwhelming  majority,  if  not  the  whole 

body  of  electors,  agreed  in  a  choice,  which 

was  forthwith  announced  through  an  aperture  made  in  the 

wall  of  the  Exchange — “  We  have  a  pope — Lord  Otho 

of  Colonna !  ” 1  The  news  spread  at  once  throughout 

the  city,  and  produced  an  enthusiasm  of  joy;  at  last 

• 

the  schism  which  had  so  long  distracted  Christendom 
was  ended.  All  the  bells  of  Constance  sent  forth  peals 
of  rejoicing.  A  multitude,  which  is  reckoned  at  80,000, 
flocked  from  all  quarters  to  the  scene  of  the  election.k 
The  emperor  himself,  disregarding  the  restraints  of  state, 
hurried  into  the  room  where  the  electors  were  assembled, 
and  fell  down  before  the  pope,  who  raised  him  up,  em¬ 
braced  him,  and  acknowledged  that  to  him  the  peaceful 
result  was  chiefly  due.f  For  hours  together  crowds  of 
all  classes  thronged  to  the  cathedral,  where  the  new  pope 
was  placed  on  the  altar  and  gave  his  benediction.111  In 
honour  of  the  day  on  which  he  was  elected,  he  took  the 
name  of  Martin  V.  ;  and,  after  having  been  ordained 
deacon,  priest,  and  bishop  on  three  successive  days,  he 
was  anointed  and  crowned  as  pope  on  the  21st  of 
November.11 


f  V.  d.  Hardt,  1394, 1474-80.  Ulrich 
of  Reichenthal’s  account  of  this  is 
curious.  Marmor,  120-5. 

e  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1481  ;  Ulr.  v.  Rei- 
chenth.  in  Marmor,  131. 
h  Ulr.,  ib.  130-2. 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv  1482-3 ;  Doc.  No. 


114. 

k  Ulr.,  v.  Reichenth.  in  Marm.  132-3. 

1  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1483-6.  The  elec¬ 
tors  are  said  to  have  appeared  as  almost 
dead  from  the  privations  of  the  con¬ 
clave.  Ib.  1485.  m  Ib.  1485-6. 

n  Ib.  1486-7,  1489-90;  Ulr.  Rei- 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1417. 


POPE  MARTIN  V. 


397 


Martin  was  now  about  fifty  years  of  age.  He  be¬ 
longed  to  the  highest  nobility  of  Rome,0  had  been  trained 
in  the  study  of  canon  law,  and  had  been  created  cardinal 
of  St.  George  by  Innocent  VII.  He  had  held  to  Gre¬ 
gory  XII.  until  the  council  of  Pisa  declared  against 
that  pope,  and  he  had  been  one  of  the  last  to  forsake 
John  XXIII.  His  morals  were  irreproachable,  and  the 
prudence  and  moderation  of  his  character  were  much 
respected. p  It  is,  however,  said  of  him  by  Leonard  of 
Arezzo,  that  whereas  before  his  elevation  he  had  been 
noted  rather  for  his  amiability  than  for  his  talents,  he 
showed,  when  pope,  extreme  sagacity,  but  no  excess  of 
benignity  A 

Very  soon  Martin  began  to  give  indications  that  those 
who  had  chosen  him  in  the  hope  of  reform  were  to  be 
disappointed.  Almost  immediately  after  his  coronation 
he  set  forth,  as  was  usual,  the  rules  for  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  his  chancery ; r  and  it  was  seen  with  dismay  that 
they  differed  hardly  at  all  in  substance  from  those  of  John 
XXIII. ;  that  they  sanctioned  all  the  corruptions  which 
the  council  had  denounced — such  as  annates,  expectan¬ 
cies,  and  reservations  ;  nay,  that  this  last  evil  was  even 
aggravated  in  the  new  code.s  And  now  that  western 
Christendom  had  one  undoubted  head,  a  man  in  whom 


chenth.  in  Marm.  133,  seqq.  See  let¬ 
ters  announcing  the  election  to  Henry 
V.  of  England,  in  Rymer,  ix.  523, 
534>  535*  In  the  ^rst  these)  Martin 
includes  Scotland  among  Henry’s 
territories  ;  in  the  last,  he  shows  him¬ 
self  better  informed. 

0  He  was  son  of  Agapetus  Colonna, 
who,  although  he  played  an  important 
part  during  the  schism,  was  not,  as 
Lenfant  says  (ii.  155),  a  cardinal.  See 
in  Litta,  ‘  Famiglie  Italiane,’  the  gene¬ 
alogy  of  the  Colonnas,  tav.  iii.-iv. 

P  Schrdckh,  xxxix.  508 ;  Milm.  vi.  64; 
Schwab,  662  ;  Gregorov.  vi.  637-9. 

<1  “  Ita  opinionem  de  seprius  habitam 


redarguit  ut  sagacitas  quidem  in  eo 
sumrna,  benignitas  vero  non  superflua 
neque  nimia  reperiretur.”  (Murat,  xix. 
930.)  Eberhard  of  Windeck  says  that 
he  was  poor  and  modest  as  a  cardinal, 
but  when  pope  was  avaricious,  and  too 
much  given  to  the  accumulation  of 
money.  (Mencken,  i.)  For  a  favourable 
view  of  the  change  in  him,  see  a  Life 
in  Murat.  III.  ii.  859. 

r  Nov.  22.  They  were  formally  pub¬ 
lished  on  Feb'.  26,  1418.  Schwab,  662. 

3  The  two  sets  of  rules  are  in  V.  d. 
Hardt,  vol.  I.  pt.  xxi.  See  Schmidt, 
iv.  122;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  510;  Milm. 
vi.  65-6 ;  Hefele,  vii.  329. 


398 


MARTIN  V. 


Book  VIII 


high  personal  character  was  added  to  the  dignity  of  his 
great  office,  the  authority  of  the  council  waned  before 
that  of  the  pope.  The  emperor  himself  was  superseded 
in  the  presidency  of  the  assembly,  and  Martin’s  power 
over  it  increased,  while  his  address  was  exerted  to 
prevent  all  dangerous  reforms.1  He  set  forth  a  list  of 
matters  as  to  which  a  reform  might  be  desirable ; u  he 
constituted  a  reformatory  college,  made  up  of  six  cardi¬ 
nals,  with  representatives  of  the  various  nations, x  and  at 

the  fortv-third  session  of  the  council  some  decrees  were 
* 

passed  as  to  exemptions,  simony,  tithes,  the  life  of  the 
clergy,  and  other  such  subjects,  y  But  it  was  found  that 
the  several  nations  were  not  agreed  as  to  the  changes 
which  were  to  be  desired ;  and  Martin  skilfully  contrived 
to  take  advantage  of  their  jealousies  so  as  to  break  up 
their  alliance  by  treating  separately  with  each  for  a 
special  concordat.2  When  the  French  urged  Sigismund 
to  press  for  reformation,  he  reminded  them  that  they 
had  insisted  on  giving  the  election  of  a  pope  precedence 
over  the  question  of  reform,  and  told  them  that  they 
must  now  apply  to  the  pope,  since  his  own  authority 
in  such  matters  had  ended  when  the  election  was 
made.9. 

The  Germans  had  presented  two  petitions  for  reform ; 
among  other  points  they  urged  that  the  cardinals  should 
be  fairly  chosen  from  the  various  nations,  and  that  their 
number  should  be  limited  to  eighteen,  or  at  the  utmost 
should  not  exceed  twenty-four.b  They  also  desired  that 
means  should  be  provided  for  the  correction  of  a  pope, 


*  Giesel.  II.  iv.  37. 
u  V.  d.  Hardt,  vol.  I.  pt.  xxiii. ;  iv. 
1509. 

x  lb.  1492.  y  lb.  1535-40. 

z  lb.  1512.  The  concordat  with  the 
Germans  is  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  vol.  I.  pt. 
xxiv. ;  that  with  the  English,  in  pt.  xxv. ; 
with  the  French,  in  vol.  iv.  86,  seqq. 


It  does  not  appear  what  the  concessions 
to  the  Spaniards  were  (ib.  1513).  See 
Hiibler,  ‘Die  Costanzer  Reformation,’ 
Leipz.  1867. 

a  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1503 ;  Gobel.  Pers. 
345- 

V.  d.  Hardt,  I.  pt.  xxii,;  iv.  1493 ; 
Schrockh,  511-13  ;  Hefele,  vii.  333. 


Chap.  VIII.  A.r>.  1417.  PROPOSALS  FOR  REFORM. 


399 


so  that  popes  might  be  punished  and  deposed  by  a 
general  council,  not  only  for  heresy,  but  for  simony,  or 
any  other  grave  and  notorious  offence.  On  this  it  would 
seem  that  no  new  enactment  was  considered  to  be  neces¬ 
sary.0  Martin,  however,  put  forth  some  proposals  for  a 
reform  of  the  curia,  in  which,  while  he  eluded  some  of 
the  chief  points  in  the  German  scheme, d  he  agreed  that 
the  number  of  cardinals  should  be  reduced,  so  as  not  to 
exceed  twenty-four,  that  a  regard  should  be  paid  to  their 
qualifications,  and  that  the  dignity  should  be  distributed 
in  fair  proportions  among  the  various  nations. e  He 
promised  also  an  improved  disposal  of  his  patronage,  and 
a  redress  of  various  crying  grievances.  To  the  Germans 
the  promise  as  to  the  cardinalate  appeared  to  hold  out 
an  important  boon  ;  for  the  instances  in  which  Germans 
had  been  admitted  to  that  dignity  were  exceedingly  rare  ;f 
but  the  hopes  excited  by  Martin’s  concession  were  very 
imperfectly  realized,  as  the  number  of  German  cardinals 
has  never  been  great.g 

The  Spaniards,  in  ridicule  of  the  faintness  with  which 
reform  was  taken  in  hand,  put  forth  a  satirical  jan>  g  ^ 

4  Mass  for  Simony.’  The  piece  was  com- 

posed  in  the  usual  form  of  such  services,  and  included 

prayers  for  the  removal  of  the  evil,  with  a  lesson  from 


c  V.  d.  Harat,  1.  c.,  art.  13,  p.  1008, 
1033.  There  is  a  curious  variation 
between  a  MS.  at  Vienna,  which  reads 
“  Nihil  respondit,”  and  one  at  Gotha, 
which  has  “Non  videtur,  prout  nec 
visum  fuit  multis  nationibus,  circa  hoc 
aliquid  novum  statui  vel  decerni.” 
d  Aschb.  ii.  330. 

e  V.  d.  Hardt,  vol.  I.  pt.  xxiii.  art.  1. 
f  Schmidt  says  (iv.  124)  that  the  only 
German  who  had  as  yet  been  a  cardinal 
was  Conrad  of  Wittelsbach,  archbishop 
of  Mentz,  whose  promotion  by  Alexan¬ 
der  III.,  in  the  year  1163,  had  been 
intended  as  a  measure  of  annoyance 
against  his  sovereign,  Frederick  Barba.- 


rossa.  (Ciac.  i.  1083.)  Other  sames  of 
Germans  in  the  time  before  the  council 
of  Constance  may,  however,  be  found 
in  Chacon’s  index,  t.  iv.  As  to  the 
later  time,  Albert  Krantz,  in  mention¬ 
ing  Nicolas  of  Cusa  as  a  German 
cardinal,  adds:  “quod  est  monstrum 
corvo  rarius  albo  ”  (Wandalia,  285). 
See  a  discussion,  under  Sixtus  V.,  in 
James  of  Volterra  (Murat,  xxiii.  94), 
where  it  is  said  that  some  German 
prelates  had  declined  the  dignity,  be¬ 
cause,  in  the  diets  of  the  empire,  which 
were  frequent,  there  was  no  special 
place  for  cardinals, 
s  Schmidt,  iv.  129. 


400 


CONCORDATS  OF  CONSTANCE. 


Book  VIII. 


the  Apocalypse,  descriptive  of  the  woman  sitting  on  the 
scarlet-coloured  beast.11 

The  concordats  into  which  Martin  had  entered  did 
not  find  much  acceptance  with  the  nations  for  which  they 
were  intended.  That  with  England  appears  to  have 
passed  without  notice.1  In  France,  although  the  king¬ 
dom  was  then  in  the  depth  of  the  weakness  caused  by 
internal  discords  and  by  the  English  invasion,  the  spirit 
of  ecclesiastical  independence,  hallowed  by  the  saintly 
renown  of  Lewis  IX.,  and  strengthened  by  the  policy  of 
Philip  the  Fair,  and  by  the  ascendency  of  later  French 
sovereigns  over  the  court  of  Avignon,  was  strongly  mani¬ 
fested.  The  king  was  made  to  declare  himself  desirous 
to  obey  the  council,  but  with  the  limitation  “  so  far  as 
God  and  reason  would  allow.”  k  The  concordat  was  re¬ 
jected  by  the  parliament  of  Paris  ;  the  principles  of  the 
pragmatic  sanction  were  maintained ;  and  the  dauphin, 
who  governed  in  his  father’s  name,  refused  to  acknow¬ 
ledge  Martin,  whose  election  he  supposed  to  have  been 
carried  by  the  hostile  influences  of  Germany  and  Eng¬ 
land,  until  after  the  pope’s  title  had  been  examined  and 
approved  by  the  university  of  Paris.1 

Among  the  subjects  which  engaged  the  attention  of 
the  council,  was  a  book  in  which  John  Petit,  a  Francis¬ 
can,  had  some  years  before  asserted  the  right  of  tyranni¬ 
cide  in  justification  of  the  treacherous  murder  of  the 
duke  of  Orleans  by  John  “the  Fearless,”  duke  of  Bur¬ 
gundy.111  Petit  himself  had  died  in  1410,  and  is  said  to 


h  (C.  xvii.)  The  ‘MissaproSimonia’ 
is  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1504. 

1  Milm.  vi.  69.  It  is  in  V.  d.  Hardt, 
pt.  xxv.  The  sixth  article  provides 
that  some  Englishmen,  chosen  indiffer¬ 
ently  with  men  of  other  nations,  shall 
be  employed  in  the  offices  of  the  curia. 

k  Lib.  de  l’Egl.  Gall.  ii.  599.  March 
1418  (misprinted  1417  in  the  heading). 
1  Bui.  v.  312  ;  Schrockh,  xxxi.  521-3. 


m  For  the  murder,  which  took  place 
in  1407,  see  Monstrelet,  i.  210,  seqq. 
Petit’s  vindication  had  been  pronounced 
before  the  king,  March  8,  1408,  and 
may  be  found  in  Gerson’s  works,  vol. 
v.  15,  seqq.,  or  in  Monstrelet,  i.  241, 
seqq.  For  the  part  which  he  had  taken 
in  the  proceedings  of  the  university  as 
to  the  schism,  see  the  Monk  of  St. 
Denys,  b.  xxvi.  cc.  1,  2,  17,  etc. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  14x5-18. 


JOHN  PETIT. 


401 


have  professed  on  his  death-bed  regret  for  the  doc¬ 
trines  which  he  had  published ; n  but  his  book  had  been 
examined,  and  eight  propositions  extracted  from  it  had 
been  condemned  by  an  assembly  of  theologians,  canonists, 
and  jurists,  under  the  presidency  of  the  bishop  of  Paris, 
in  1414.0 

The  matter  was  brought  before  the  council  of  Con¬ 
stance  in  June  1415  by  Gerson,  who  had  Sess.  xm. 
taken  an  active  part  in  the  earlier  stages  ;p  June  15. 
and  it  occupied  much  time,  during  which  he  and  cardinal 
d’Ailly  exerted  all  their  powers  to  obtain  a  condemnation 
of  the  atrocious  opinions  which  Petit  had  enounced. q 
The  contest  was  obstinately  and  hotly  waged,  with  the 
pen  as  well  as  with  the  tongue ;  Petit’s  defenders  were 
stigmatized  as  Cainites  and  heretics,  while  they  retaliated 
by  comparing  Gerson  to  Judas,  Herod,  and  Cerberus,1' 
and  by  taunting  him  with  favours  which  he  had  formerly 
received  from  the  Burgundian  family.s  The  influence  in 
favour  of  Petit  was  so  powerful,  that  his  book  escaped 
with  the  condemnation  of  only  one  especially  outrageous 
proposition, fc  while  his  name  was  umnentioned  in  the 


“  Gerson,  v.  168. 

0  Hefele,  vii.  180.  See  on  this  affair, 
Gerson,  vol.  V.  pt.  ii.  ;  Bourgeois  du 
Chastenet ;  Bulseus,  v.  236,  seqq., 
284,  seqq.  ;  D’Argentre,  I.  ii.  184, 
seqq. :  for  the  sentence,  Gerson,  v.  322. 
The  bishop  of  Arras  remarks  bitterly 
on  the  Paris  condemnation.  Ib.  391. 

P  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  331  ;  Monstrelet, 

iii.  268  ;  Schwab,  438,  seqq.,  609,  seqq. 
Gerson  himself  had,  in  earlier  years, 
spoken  of  tyrannicide  as  lawful,  quoting 
from  Seneca,  “  Nulla  Deo  gratior  vic- 
tima  quam  tyrannus  ”  (Consil.  7,  Opp. 

iv.  624),  and  he  was  always  opposed 
to  the  doctrine  of  passive  obedience. 
But  the  murder  of  the  duke  of  Orleans 
had  changed  his  opinion  as  to  tyranni¬ 
cide,  which  he  had  denounced  in  his 
treatise  ‘  De  Auferib.  Papae.’  Ib.  ii. 

VOL.  VII. 


218. 

<1  D’Ailly  was  objected  to  as  a  judge, 
on  the  ground  that  he  had  shared  in  the 
Paris  sentence.  (V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  337.) 
He  preached  against  Petit’s  doctrine, 
March  23,  1417  (ib.  1191-4;  cf.  1087, 
1091,  etc.;  Gerson,  ii.  3T9-29,  330,  338, 
seqq.).  The  Dominicans  pretended  that 
the  questions  raised  by  Petit  did  not 
belong  to  faith,  but  to  a  cause  of  blood, 
and  therefore  were  unfit  to  be  treated 
by  clergy.  See  against  this,  Gerson, 
ii.  326,  389. 

r  See  two  pieces  in  verse,  Gerson,  v. 
552,  555-6. 

8  Ib.  745,  B  ;  Schwab,  610. 

t  “Quilibet  tyrannus  potest  et  debet 
licite  et  meritorie  occidi  per  quem- 
cunque  vasallum  suum  vel  subditum, 
etiam  per  insidias  et  blanditias  vel 

26 


402 


JOIIX  OF  FALKENBERG. 


Book  VIII. 


censure ;  and  even  this  sentence  was  afterwards  set  aside 
on  the  ground  of  informality.11  It  is  noted 
Juy  ’  I4I5‘that  among  the  defenders  of  Petit’s  book 
was  Peter  Caucher,  vidame  of  Reims,  who  afterwards,  as 
bishop  of  Beauvais,  gained  an  infamous  celebrity  by  his 
part  in  the  condemnation  of  the  Maid  of  Orleans.x 

Another  book,  the  work  of  a  Dominican,  John  of  Fal- 
kenberg,  was  brought  before  the  council,  on  the  ground 
that  the  author,  who  wrote  in  the  interest  of  the  Teutonic 
knights,  had  grossly  attacked  the  king  of  Poland,  and  had 
declared  it  to  be  not  only  lawful,  but  highly  meritorious, 
to  kill  him  and  all  his  people.7  Before  the  election  of 
Martin,  this  book  had  been  condemned  to  the  flames  by 
the  committee  on  matters  of  faith  ;  but  the  sentence  had 
not  been  confirmed  in  a  general  session,  and  the  Poles 
found  that  Martin,  although  he  had  himself  subscribed 
the  earlier  condemnation,  was  resolved  as  pope  to  do 
away  with  its  effect.  Being  thus  denied  redress,  they 
appealed  to  a  general  council,  but  Martin  declared  that 
no  such  appeal  from  a  pope  could  be  allowed.2  On  this 


adulationes,  non  obstante  quocunque 
juramento,  seu  confoederatione  facta 
cum  eo,  non  expectata  sententia  vel 
mandato  judicis  cujuscunque  ”  (V.  d. 
Hardt,  iv.  389,  439).  Nine  other  pro¬ 
positions  had  been  presented  to  the 
council,  but  it  evaded  condemning 
them.  (Ib.  451,  722,  725,  728  ;  Gerson, 
v.  274.)  In  them  the  word  tyrannus 
does  not  seem  to  mean  a  sovereign, 
but  one  who  gains  a  wrongful  ascen¬ 
dency  over  a  sovereign,  and  uses  ill 
practices  against  him — one  who  in  any 
way  has  power,  and  who  abuses  it. 
Thus  Petit  justifies  the  murder,  on  the 
ground  that  the  duke  of  Orleans  had 
compassed  the  king’s  death  by  magical 
arts  (Gerson,  v.  35,  seqq.).  He  quotes 
very  strange  authorities  on  a  subject 
of  Christian  morality — including  Aris¬ 
totle,  Cicero,  and  Boccaccio  (ib.  27). 
For  a  comparison  of  Petit’s  propositions 


with  Gerson’s  statement  of  them,  see 
Schwab,  612-14  :  for  a  defence  of  Ger¬ 
son  against  charges  of  misrepresenta¬ 
tion  brought  by  Leyser,  a  law-professor 
of  Wittenberg,  a.d.  1735,  see  Ib.  644. 

u  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1513  ;  Milm.  v.  59. 
The  duke  of  Burgundy  afterwards 
compelled  the  bishop  of  Paris  to  recall 
his  sentence  against  Petit,  and  the  uni¬ 
versity  to  make  a  sort  of  disavowal  of  its 
proceedings  in  the  matter.  Monstrelet, 
iv.  117  ;  Bulaeus,  v.  332-5;  Sism.  Hist. 
Fr.  xii.  553. 
x  Martin,  v.  555. 

y  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1531  ;  Lenf.  i. 
211-12  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  267-8  ;  Schwab, 
665;  Hefele,  vii.  343.  Falkenberg  had 
defended  Petit  with  much  asperity. 
See  his  tracts  in  Gerson,  v.  1013,  seqq.; 
Schwab,  1.  c. 

*  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1532;  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  267-8  ;  Hefele,  vii.  368-9. 


Chap.  VIII.  a.d.  1418.  END  OF  THE  COUNCIL.  403 

Gerson  put  forth  a  tract  in  which  the  new  pope’s  declara¬ 
tion  was  shown  to  be  opposed  to  the  principles  on  which 
the  council  had  acted.a  But  Martin,  whether  acquainted 
with  Gerson’s  tract  or  not,  proceeded  in  direct  opposition 
to  his  views.  In  answer  to  the  allegations  of  the  Poles, 
that  the  book  contained  “  most  cruel  heresies,”  and  there¬ 
fore  ought  to  fall  under  the  censure  of  an  assembly  which 
had  for  one  of  its  chief  objects  the  extirpation  of  heresy, 
he  declared  that  he  approved  of  all  that  the  council  had 
done  as  to  matters  of  faith.  He  enjoined  silence  on  the 
complainants,  under  a  threat  of  excommunication,  and, 
although  they  still  persisted,  even  to  the  last  session  of 
the  council — styling  Falkenberg’s  opinions  a  “  doctrine 
of  devils  ” — their  struggles  to  obtain  a  condemnation 
were  fruitless. b 

At  the  forty-fourth  session,  Pavia  was  named  as  the 
place  where  the  next  general  council  should  April  19, 
be  held.  The  French  representatives,  who  I4IS. 
disliked  this  proposal,  absented  themselves  from  the 
meeting  at  which  it  was  to  be  brought  forward.0 

The  forty-fifth  and  last  session  was  held  on  the  22nd 
of  April  1418,  when  the  pope  bestowed  his  absolution 
on  all  the  fathers  of  the  council,  with  their  followers,  and 
on  all  other  persons  who  had  been  present  on  account  of 
business  connected  with  it.d  The  emperor  had  been 
rewarded  for  his  labours  by  a  grant  of  a  year’s  eccle¬ 
siastical  tithe  from  his  dominions  ; e  and,  although  some 
German  churches  engaged  a  Florentine  lawyer,  Dominic 
de  Germiniano,  to  oppose  this  grant  as  informal,  illegal, 
and  oppressive,  such  was  the  ascendency  of  the  pope 

a  “Anliceata  summo  Pontifice  ap-  friars  continued  to  assert  the  lawfulness 
pellare.”  Opera,  ii.  303.  of  tyrannicide  as  a  probable  opinion. 

b  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1551,  1555-60.  Giesel.  II.  iii.  268. 

As  to  Falkenberg’s  further  history,  see  c  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1547-9. 
Quetif-Echard,  i.  761.  Inconsequence  d  lb.  1560. 

of  the  manner  in  which  the  cases  of  «  Jan.  26,  1418.  Ib.  1509  ;  ii.  589. 
Petit  and  Falkenberg  were  treated,  the 


404  the  pope  leaves  Constance.  bookviii. 

over  the  council  that  the  advocate,  instead  of  carrying 
out  his  commission,  was  fain  to  conclude  his  pleading 
with  a  proposal  that  the  impost  should  be  collected  in  a 
way  less  burdensome  than  that  which  had  been  originally 
intended.1 

Although  Sigismund  had  endeavoured  to  prolong  the 
pope’s  stay  in  Germany,  and  the  French  had  urged  him 
to  settle  at  Avignon,  his  answer  to  such  solicitations  had 
been  that  Rome  and  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter  required 
his  presence.5  On  the  16th  of  May,  he  left  Constance 
with  a  magnificent  display  of  pomp.  Arrayed  in  his 
most  splendid  robes  of  office,  he  rode  under  a  canopy 
which  was  supported  by  four  counts,  while  the  emperor 
and  the  elector  of  Brandenburg  walked  beside  him,  and 
held  his  bridle  on  either  side.  Frederick  of  Austria,  with 
other  secular  princes  and  nobles,  twelve  cardinals,  and  a 
vast  train  of  ecclesiastics  of  all  grades,  followed ;  and  it 
is  said  that  the  whole  cavalcade  amounted  to  4o,ooo.h 
The  scene  might  be  regarded  as  symbolical  of  the  vic¬ 
tory  which  the  papacy  had  gained.  The  council  which 
had  deposed  popes  had  been  mastered  by  the  pope  of  its 
own  choosing  ;  the  old  system  of  Rome,  so  long  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  vehement  complaint,  had  escaped  untouched ;  and 
no  mention  had  been  made  of  any  reform  in  doctrine.1 

While  the  pope  was  thus  triumphant,  Gerson,  the 
great  theologian  of  the  council,  withdrew  from  it  to 
obscurity  and  exile.  Paris  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
English,  and  of  the  ferocious  duke  of  Burgundy,  to 
whom  he  had  made  himself  obnoxious.  The  university 
of  which  he  had  been  the  glory,  and  which  had  sent  him 
forth  at  the  head  of  its  representatives,  could  no  longer 
receive  him ;  and  he  was  glad  to  accept  an  asylum  from 

f  V.  d.  Hardt,  ii.  608  ;  Giesel.  II.  iil  h  Ulr.  v.  Reichenth.  in  Marmor, 
43.  144  ;  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1582-3;  Lenfant, 

s  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1580 ;  Murat.  III.  ii.  258. 
ii.  862  ;  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  530.  1  Milman,  vi.  70-1. 


Chap.  IX.  a.d.  1303-39.  THE  GREEK  CHURCH. 


405 


the  duke  of  Bavaria. k  The  offer  of  a  professorship  at 
Vienna  drew  from  him  a  poem  of  thanks  to  Frederick 
of  Austria;1  but  he  remained  in  his  seclusion  until,  after 
the  assassination  of  the  duke  of  Burgundy  on  the  bridge 
of  Montereau,  in  September  1419,111  he  removed  to  Lyons, 
where  he  spent  the  last  ten  years  of  his  life  in  devotion, 
study,  and  literary  labour.11  The  latest  of  his  works  was 
a  commentary  on  the  Canticles ;  and  three  days  after 
having  completed  it  he  died,  at  the  age  of  sixty-six,  on 
the  12th  of  July,  1429.0 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  GREEK  CHURCH — CHRISTIANITY  IN  ASIA— 

CONVERSIONS. 

I.  During  the  last  period  of  the  Byzantine  empire,  the 
relations  of  the  Greek  church  with  the  papacy  were 
mainly  governed  by  political  circumstances.  The  em¬ 
perors,  in  their  need  of  assistance  against  the  Mussul¬ 
mans,  who  pressed  continually  more  and  more  on  them, 
made  frequent  solicitations  to  the  Christians  of  the  west, 
and,  in  order  to  recommend  their  cause,  they  professed 
a  zeal  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  churches.  But  in  this 
they  were  supported  only  by  a  small  courtly  party,  while 
the  mass  of  the  Greeks  held  the  Latins  in  abomination ; a 

k  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1583-4 ;  Trithem.  of  his  residence  at  Lyons.  C.  Schmidt, 

de  Script.  Eccles.  349.  in  Herzog,  v.  97. 

1  Opp.  iv.  787  ;  Schwab,  758.  0  lb.,  1.  c.  98-9  ;  Schwab,  772. 

m  See  Monstrelet,  t.  iv.  c.  219.  a  Thus  Petrarch  testifies  of  them, 

n  There  are  forty  tracts,  of  greater  “  Constat  quia  nos  canes  judicant,  etsi 
or  less  size,  which  belong  to  the  time  loquendi  libertas  affuerit,  canes  vocant. 


40  6 


GREEK  AND  LATIN  CHURCHES. 


Book  VIII. 


and,  as  the  material  aid,  for  the  sake  of  which  the  desire 
of  unity  had  been  professed,  wras  not  forthcoming,  such 
concessions  as  were  made  by  the  emperors  or  their 
representatives  were  usually  disavowed  with  abhorrence 
by  their  people.  Such,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  the 
result  of  the  reconciliation  which  had  been  formerly 
concluded  at  the  council  of  Lyons  in  1274  ;b  and,  in 
their  resentment  on  account  of  the  subsequent  breach, 
Benedict  XI.  and  Clement  V.  encouraged  Charles  of 
Valois  to  assert  by  arms  a  claim  to  the  throne  of  Con- 
,  stantinople,  in  right  of  his  wife.  Clement 

A.D.  1306.  .  •  i  .  r 

gave  to  the  enterprise  the  character  01  a 
crusade,  bestowred  the  privileges  of  crusaders  on  all  who 
should  take  part  in  it,  and  assigned  to  Charles  a  tenth  of 
the  ecclesiastical  revenues  of  France  in  order  to  furnish 
him  with  means.  But  nothing  came  of  this  project.0 

At  a  later  time,  Andronicus  II.  and  his  grandson  ot 
the  same  name  (who,  after  having  been  his  colleague, 
assumed  the  whole  government  in  1328 d)  were  driven 
by  fear  of  the  Ottoman  Turks  to  make  overtures  to  the 
popes  and  to  the  western  princes.0  In  1333  the  younger 
Andronicus  sent  a  message  to  John  XXII.  by  two 
Dominicans  who  were  returning  from  the  east ;  and  in 
consequence  of  this  two  bishops  were  sent  from  Avignon 
to  the  court  of  Constantinople.1  But  the  Greeks,  in 
distrust  of  the  sophistical  skill  which  they  attributed  to 
the  western  theologians,  refused  to  have  anything  to 
do  with  what  they  styled  the  Latin  novelties  ;  and  the 


Interfui  ego  solemni  die,  dum  Romano 
ritu  missa  celebraretur.  Grsecus  qui- 
dam,  homo  non  il  literatus,  sed  multo 
maxime  stultus  atque  arrogans,  ex- 
clamavit ;  ‘  Ego  non  possum  pati,’  in¬ 
quit,  *  Latinorum  nugas.’  "  Senil.  vii. 
p.  912,  ed.  Basil. 

b  See  vol.  vi.  pp.  271,  279. 
c  See  above,  pp.  21,  63.  Raynald. 
1304.  28-30  ;  1306.  2  ;  1307.  6,  seqq. 


d  Niceph.  Gregor.  1.  ix.  6-7 ;  Gibbon, 
v.  114-18.  For  this  part  of  the  history, 
see  Finlay,  Gr.  and  Byz.  Empires,  b. 
iv.  c.  11. 

e  Raynald.  1324.  39  ;  Allatius  de 
Eccl.  Occid.  et  Orient,  perpetua  Con- 
sensione,  1.  ii.  c.  16 ;  Schrockh,  xxiv. 
371, 

f  Niceph.  Gregor,  x.  8;  Rayn.  1333. 
x7i  *9  ;  1334-  h  seqq. 


Chap.  IX.  a.d.  1303-39. 


BARLAAM. 


407 


mission  had  no  effect.5  In  1337  Benedict  XII.  wrote 
to  Andronicus  for  the  purpose  of  confirming  him  in 
his  desire  of  ecclesiastical  unity;  and  two  years  later, 
Barlaam,  a  Basilian  monk  of  Calabria,  who  had  ac¬ 
quired  great  favour  in  the  Byzantine  court,  appeared  at 
Avignon  with  a  knight  named  Stephen  Dandolo,  bearing 
recommendations  from  the  kings  of  France  and  Sicily.11 
The  instructions  of  these  envoys  charged  them  to  labour 
for  the  reunion  of  the  churches,  while  the  need  of  assist¬ 
ance  against  the  Turks  was  mentioned  as  a  secondary 
and  comparatively  trifling  matter.  But  it  was  requested 
that  the  aid  might  be  sent  at  once,  because  the  emperor 
would  be  unable,  so  long  as  the  war  should  last,  to 
assemble  the  eastern  patriarchs  for  the  general  council 
which  was  proposed  as  a  tribunal  for  the  decision  of  the 
questions  by  which  east  and  west  were  divided.1  Even 
the  Jews,  said  Barlaam,  although  the  most  ungrateful  of 
mankind,  after  having  been  miraculously  fed  by  the 
Saviour,  wished  to  make  Him  a  king ;  and,  in  like 
manner,  assistance  of  this  kind  would  prepare  the  minds 
of  the  Greeks  to  welcome  the  proposals  of  religious 
union.k  The  pope,  however,  declined  the  project  of  a 
general  council,  on  the  ground  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Spirit’s  procession  had  already  been  settled  by 
some  of  the  greatest  councils — even  including  (he  said) 
the  general  council  of  Ephesus — and  that  he  could  not 
allow  it  to  be  again  brought  into  question.1  The  pro¬ 
posal  of  a  compromise,  by  which  each  party  should  for 


g  Nic.  Greg.  1.  c.  (who  makes  himself 
the  hero  of  the  affair)  ;  Rayn.  1334.  5. 

h  Bened.  XII.  in  Allatius  de  Eccll. 
perp.  Cons.  787,  seqq.;  Rayn.  1339.  19, 
seqq.  ;  Migne,  Patrol.  Gr.  cli.  1331. 
Nicephorus  Gregoras,  who  had  been  in 
controversy  with  Barlaam,  describes 
him  as  acquainted  with  Latin  theology, 
but  knowing  nothing  of  Greek  beyond 
a  smattering  of  secular  literature.  XI. 


x.  1  ;  XIX.  i.  4. 

1  Bari,  in  Migne,  Patrol.  Grace, 
cli.  1334-5  ;  Gibbon,  vi.  2x4  ;  Giesel. 
II.  iii.  362. 

k  Bari,  in  Migne,  Patr.  Gr.  cli.  1385. 
1  Bened.  in  Rayn.  1339.  25,  32,  34  ; 
Migne,  1.  c.  1337.  The  reference  to 
the  council  of  Ephesus  may  have  meant 
that  that  council  forbade  the  compo¬ 
sition  of  new  creeds.  (Can.  7.) 


408 


BARLAAM  AND  THE 


Look  VIII. 


the  present  be  allowed  to  hold  its  own  opinions,  was 
rejected,  on  the  ground  that  the  faith  of  the  catholic 
church  could  be  but  one.m  Other  expedients  suggested 
by  Barlaam  found  no  great  favour ;  nor  was  any  hope  ol 
aid  held  out,  except  on  condition  that  the  Greeks  should 
first  renounce  their  errors,  and  should  send  some  of  their 
number  to  be  instructed  in  the  west." 

Barlaam,  on  returning  to  the  east  after  this  fruitless 
mission,  became  involved  in  a  strange  controversy  with 
some  monks  of  Mount  Athos  and  their  supporters. 
These  monks,  who  were  styled  hesychasts  (or  quietists), 
imagined  that  by  cultivating  an  ascetic  repose  they  might 
attain  to  behold  the  light  of  the  Godhead.  They  are 
described  as  fixing  their  gaze  on  the  central  part  of 
their  own  persons,  in  the  hope  that  through  the  con¬ 
templation  both  their  spiritual  and  their  bodily  eyes 
would  be  enlightened  by  the  divine  radiance.0  Barlaam, 
it  is  said,  designedly  chose  out  one  of  the  more  simple 
monks,  whom  the  imperial  chronicler  John  Cantacuzene 
describes  as  little  superior  to  an  irrational  animal,  and, 
by  affecting  the  character  of  a  disciple,  drew  from  him 
answers  which  showed  a  very  gross  apprehension  of 
spiritual  things ;  whereupon  he  denounced  the  whole 
community,  as  if  the  views  in  question  were  shared  by  all 
its  members.5  At  Thessalonica,  where  he  first  broached 
the  subject,  he  was  confronted  by  Gregory  Palamas,  a 
monk  of  Mount  Athos,  who  enjoyed  an  extraordinary 
reputation  for  ascetic  sanctity ; q  and,  having  fled  in 


m  Rayn.  1339.  26 ;  Migne,  1.  c.  1337. 
n  lb.  T338  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  364. 

0  Simeon  Xerocercus  in  Allat.  de 
Eccl.  Occid.  et  Orient,  perp.  Consens. 
829  ;  Rayn.  1341.  71  ;  Mosh.  ii.  705. 
Gieseler  refers  to  Kampfer  and  to  Ber¬ 
nier  for  evidence  of  like  practices  in 
Siam  and  in  India.  (II.  iii.  368.)  On 
the  controversies  arising  out  of  this, 
see  Petav.  Theol.  Dogm.  1.  I.  cc.  12-13. 


p  J.  Cantac.  ii.  39,  p.  329,  ed.  Paris, 
1645.  Barlaam  derided  the  monks 
as  6/xt/>aAoi//vxoi,  Messalians,  etc.  (J. 
Cant.  p.  329.)  See  Philotheus  (patriarch 
of  Constantinople),  in  Migne,  Patrol. 
Gr.  cli.  585  ;  Tom.  Synodic,  ib.  680. 

J.  Cantac;  ii.  39,  pp.  330-2  ;  Philo¬ 
theus,  in  Migne,  Patrol.  Gr.  cli.  586, 
seqq.  Palamas  was  afterwards  ap¬ 
pointed  archbishop  of  Thessalonica,  but 


Chai\  IX.  a.d.  1339-42.  HESYCHASTIC  CONTROVERSY. 


409 


fearr  of  the  rabid  monks  to  Constantinople,  where  he 
persuaded  the  patriarch  John  to  assemble  a 
synods  for  the  consideration  of  the  matter,  he  -D‘  Ij4t' 
there  again  found  Palamas  his  opponent. 1  The  question 
of  the  light  which  the  mystics  of  Mount  Athos  supposed 
themselves  to  see  brought  on  a  discussion  as  to  the  light 
which  shone  around  the  Saviour  at  His  transfiguration. 
This  light  Palamas  maintained  to  be  uncreated  ; u  while 
Barlaam  argued  that,  if  so,  it  must  be  God,  forasmuch  as 
God  alone  is  uncreated.  But,  he  continued,  since  no  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time,  the  hesychasts  must  hold  the 
existence  of  two  Gods — one,  the  invisible  maker  of  all 
things ;  the  other,  the  visible  and  uncreated  light.x  The 
decision  of  the  council  was  adverse  to  Barlaam,  who,  ac¬ 
cording  to  John  Cantacuzene,  when  he  saw  that  the  case 
was  going  against  him,  consulted  the  grand  domestic  (Can¬ 
tacuzene  himself),  acknowledged  himself  to  have  been 
in  error,  and  was  joyfully  embraced  by  Palamas.  y  But 
if  this  account  be  true,  his  submission  must  have  been 
insincere  ;  for  he  soon  after  removed  to  Italy,  where  he 
joined  the  Latin  church,  and  wrote  some  letters  in  its 
behalf,  which  contrast  strongly  with  his  arguments  of  an 
earlier  time  as  a  champion  of  the  Greeks.2  Through  the 


was  refused  by  the  people,  and  was 
obliged  to  withdraw  to  Lemnos.  (Joh. 
Cantac.  iv.  15.  For  his  miracles, 
Philoth.  636,  seqq.)  But,  although  re¬ 
garded  as  a  saint  by  some  Greeks, 
he  is  violently  reprobated  by  others, 
whose  opinions  are  collected  by  Alla- 
tius,  Graecia  Orthod.  i.  756,  seqq.; 
cf.  De  Eccl.  Perp.  Consensu,  803-24. 
Palamas  accused  Barlaam  of  dishonest 
tricks.  (Theophanes,  in  Migne,  Patrol. 
Gr.  cl.  913.)  Nicephorus  Gregoras  is 
strongly  against  Palamas,  and  describes 
his  partisans  as  ignorant,  furious,  and 
immoral.  XVIII.  i.  3-5 ;  ii.  4  ;  iii., 
seqq.  r  Nic.  Greg.  XI.  x.  3. 

8  This  has  been  reckoned  by  some 


Greeks  as  the  IXth  general  council. 
Petavius,  i.  85. 

4  Philoth.  506,  seqq.,  in  Migne,  cli. 
Palamas  and  other  opponents  of  Bar¬ 
laam  are  in  the  same  volume.  Cf.  Nic. 
Greg.  1.  c.  (ib.  cxlviii.). 

u  Hagiorheticus,  in  Migne,  Patrol. 
Gr.  cl.  1231 ;  Theophanes,  ib.  925,  928 ; 
Joh.  Cantacuz.  ii.  39,  pp.  332-3;  ii.  40, 
p.  334  ;  Mosh.  ii.  707. 

x  Joh.  Cantac.  p.  333  ;  Palamas,  in 
Pat.  Gr.  cl.  928;  Mansi,  xxv.,  a.d.  1341. 

y  Joh.  Cantac.  ii.  40,  p.  336.  But  the 
truth  of  this  account  seems  very  ques¬ 
tionable.  See  Allatius  de  Eccl.  Perp. 
Consensu,  830  ;  Hefele,  vi.  567. 
z  Patrol.  Gr.  cli.  1255,  seqq.  ;  Ray- 


4io 


GREEK  AND  LATIN  CHURCHES. 


Book  VIII. 


interest  of  Petrarch,  whom  he  had  assisted  in  the  study 
of  Plato, a  he  was  promoted  to  the  bishoprick  of  Gerace 
in  1342  ;b  and  his  equivocal  reputation  as  a  divine  is 
combined  with  a  more  creditable  fame  as  one  among 
the  chief  revivers  of  Greek  letters  in  the  west.0 

The  controversy  begun  by  Barlaam  was  kept  up  by 
his  pupil  Gregory  Acindynus  ;d  but  repeated  judgments 
were  pronounced  against  their  opinions,  and  at  a  great 
synod,  held  at  Constantinople  in  1350,  it  was  declared, 
with  a  show  of  patristic  authority,  that  the  light  of  Mount 
Tabor  was  uncreated,  although  not  of  the  substance 
(, ovala )  of  God,e  while  Barlaam  and  Acindynus  were 
cut  olf  from  the  body  of  the  church,  and  were  declared 
to  be  incapable  of  forgiveness  after  death.f 

The  death  of  Andronicus  III.,  in  1341,  left  the  empire 
to  his  son  John  Palseologus,  a  boy  nine  years  old,  who 
was  under  the  guardianship  of  the  grand  domestic,  John 
Cantacuzene. g  After  a  time  Cantacuzene,  alarmed  by 
the  intrigues  of  a  party  which  included  the  empress- 

Oct  26  i"  1  mot^er  and  the  patriarch  John  of  Apri, 
’  341’  endeavoured  to  seize  the  empire,  as  the  only 
means  of  securing  his  own  safety  ;h  but  he  was  driven 
into  exile,  from  which  he  delivered  himself  by  the  fatal 


nald.  1341.  73,  seqq.  Hence  some  (as 
Canisius,  iv.  362)  have  fancied  that 
there  were  two  Barlaams.  Allat.  de 
Eccl.  Perp.  Cons.  840. 
a  Petrarc.  Variar.  Ep.  21,  p.  1102. 
b  Ughelli,  ix.  345. 

0  See  below,  c.  xi.  iv.  3. 
d  See  his  iambics  against  Palamas, 
Patrol.  Gr.  cl.  813. 

e  Mansi,  xxvi.  127,  seqq.  (especially 
139,  183)  ;  Philoth.  in  Patrol.  Gr.  cli. 
600,  seqq.  ;  Tom.  Synod,  ib.  672-74  ; 
Gr.  Acind.  ib.  1191,  seqq.;  Joh.  Cantac. 

ii.  40,  p.  337;  iii.  98;  iv.  23;  Giesel.  II. 

iii.  370.  Niceph.  Gregoras,  who  took 
part  against  Palamas,  is  very  full  on 
this(xviii.  6—  xxi.),  and  complains  that 


his  party  was  unfairly  treated.  As  to 
Gregoras,  see  J.oh.  Cantac.  iv.  24. 
f  Mansi,  xxvi.  191  ;  Joh.  Cantac.  iv. 

23- 

s  Ib.  ii.  2,  p.  352  ;  Nic.  Greg.  xii. 
2-3  ;  Gibbon,  vi.  120. 

h  See  his  chronicle,  book  iii.  ;  Nic. 
Greg.  xii.  n-12.  Cantacuzene  says  that 
Andronicus  had  often  urged  him  to 
become  his  colleague,  (ii.  40,  p.  337.) 
John  had  been  made  patriarch  through 
the  policy  of  Cantacuzene  while  grand 
domestic  (ii.  21).  He  assumed  the 
state  of  a  pope  and  of  an  emperor  (iii. 
2,  36),  but  eventually  was  deposed,  and 
became  insane,  iii.  99  ;  iv.  3 ;  Nic. 
Greg.  xiv.  3. 


Chap.  IX.  a.d.  1342-55.  JOHN  OF  CANTACUZENE. 


411 

measure  of  calling  the  Turks  into  Europe  as  his  allies — 

giving  his  daughter  in  marriage  to  their  leader  Orkan, 

on  condition  that  she  should  be  allowed  to  preserve  her 

religion.1  The  empire  was  now  shared  by  John  Palaeo- 

lomis,  his  mother,  Anne  of  Savoy,  and  Canta-  _  .  0 
o’  '  ' '  Feb.  o,  1347. 

cuzene,  who  became  the  father-in-law  of  the 
young  prince  and  held  the  chief  power  in  21‘ 

his  own  hands. k  While  Cantacuzene  was  in  exile,  the 
empress-mother  had  addressed  a  letter  to  Clement  VI., 
expressing  a  strong  desire  to  unite  her  subjects  with  the 
church  in  which  she  had  herself  been  brought  up,  and 
entreating  the  pope  to  send  her  assistance  in  the  mean¬ 
time.1  Cantacuzene  now  sent  ambassadors  to  the  court 
of  Avignon ;  and  the  reception  which  they 
met  with  from  Clement  led  him  to  believe  A’D’ 
that  a  reconciliation  was  certain,  and  that  a  crusade 
was  to  be  undertaken  in  his  behalf.m  But,  although  he 

repeatedly  protested  to  the  envoys  whom 

~  .  .  .  ,  .  .  a.d.  1 347- so. 

Clement  sent  to  Constantinople  that  he  would 

gladly  give  his  life  for  the  re-union  of  the  churches,  he 

declared  that  the  guilt  of  the  separation  lay  on  the  Latins, 

who  had  caused  it  by  their  innovations  and  assumptions ; 

and  that  he  would  not  submit  his  conscience  to  any  less 

authority  than  that  of  a  council  fairly  gathered  from  the 

whole  church.11  The  pope  is  said  by  Cantacuzene  to 

have  expressed  his  willingness  to  try  this  course;0  but 

the  negotiation  was  broken  off  by  the  death 

of  Clement, p  and  by  the  forced  abdication  ^an' 


1  J.  Cantac.  iii.  63,  seqq.;  Nic.  Greg, 
xiii.  1,  seqq.;  Gibbon,  vi.  122-7.  Ducas 
says  that  it  was  the  empress-mother 
Anne  who  first  invited  the  Turks,  and 
that  Cantacuzene,  by  the  offer  of  his 
daughter,  detached  Orkan  from  the 
opposite  party.  (8-9.)  The  example 
of  such  dealings  with  the  barbarians 
had  been  set  by  a  rival  politician,  Apo- 


cauchus.  Nic.  Greg.  xiii.  8,  seqq. 

k  J.  Cantac.  iv.  i,  4;  Nic.  Greg. 
xviiL;  Ducas,  10;  Gibbon,  vi.  126;  Fin¬ 
lay,  Gr.  and  Byz.  Emp.  ii.  547,  seqq. 

1  J.  Cantac.  iii.  87.  ra  lb.  iv.  9. 
n  lb.  iv.  9,  pp.  735-6  ;  Rayn.  1350. 
32,  seqq.;  Gibbon,  vi.  217. 

0  J.  Cantac.  iv.  9,  p.  737. 
p  lb.  iv.  10. 


412 


JOHN  PAUEOLOGUS. 


Book  VIII. 


of  the  emperor,  who  spent  his  last  years  as  a  monk  on 
Mount  Athos,  where  he  employed  himself  in  composing 
an  uncandid  history  of  his  own  time.q 

But  John  Palaeologus,  when  thus  rid  of  his  guardian, 
was  of  all  Greek  emperors  the  most  inclined  to  make 
concessions  to  Rome/  As  the  son  of  a  western  princess, 
whose  influence  over  him  still  continued,  he  felt  nothing 
of  the  bigoted  prejudice  with  which  the  Greeks  in  general 
regarded  the  Latins  ;  and  his  dangers  both  from  the 
Turks  and  from  Cantacuzene’s  son  made  him  ready  to 
seek  for  assistance  from  the  west  on  any  terms.5  In  1355 
he  made  overtures  to  Innocent  VI.,  offering  to  send  his 
son  Manuel  to  the  pope,  to  have  him  instructed  in  Latin 
under  the  superintendence  of  a  legate,  and  to  establish 
schools  for  teaching  Latin  to  young  Greek  nobles ;  and 
promising,  if  he  should  fail  as  to  any  of  these  proposals, 
to  abdicate  in  favour  of  his  son,  who  should  then  be 
wholly  under  the  control  of  the  poped  A  Carmelite, 
Peter  Thomasius,  was  thereupon  sent  to  the  Byzantine 
court,  and  made  an  easy  convert  of  the  emperor. u  In 
1366  John  subscribed  in  Hungary  a  form  of  faith  agree¬ 
able  to  that  of  the  Latin  church,  and  professed  homage 
to  the  pope  ;  he  renewed  his  assurances  to  Urban  V.  ;x 
and  in  1369,  while  Constantinople  was  under  siege  by 
Amurath,  the  pope’s  return  from  Avignon  was  adorned 
by  the  presence  of  the  eastern  empercr  as  well  as  by  that 
of  the  emperor  of  the  west  at  Rcme.v  John  acknow¬ 
ledged  the  Roman  supremacy,  and  the  double  procession 
of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  he  did  homage  to  the 

Oct.  1 069.  p0p£  *n  gk  peter’s  by  bending  the  knee,  and 

J.  Cantac.  42  ;  Ducas,  c.  ix,  p.  21  ;  1  Raynald.  1355.  34;  Vita  II.  Innoc. 

Finlay,  ii.  574.  For  the  character  of  the  VI.  in  Baluz.  i.  348. 
book,  see  Gibbon,  vi.  114;  Finlay,  ii.  u  Vita  St.  Pet.  Thomas.,  Acta  SS., 
5x1,  530.  r  Gibbon,  vi.  217.  Jan.  29.  x  Baluz.  i.  403. 

8  Allat.  de  Eccl.  Perp.  Cons.  843 ;  *  See  above,  p.  189. 

Gibbon,  vi.  217-18. 


Chap.  IX.  a.d.  1355-96.  CRUSADE  AGAINST  THE  TURKS.  413 

by  kissing  his  feet,  hands,  and  mouth  ;  he  assisted  at 
amass  celebrated  by  Urban;2  and  he  performed  that 
“  office  of  a  groom  ”  which  the  Christians  of  the  west 
had  been  persuaded  to  connect  with  the  memory  of 
Constantine  the  Great.a  But  all  these  compliances  were 
ineffectual  as  to  the  object  for  which  they  were  made. 
The  pope’s  exhortations  to  the  knights  of  Rhodes,  to  the 
king  of  Cyprus,  to  the  Venetians  and  the  Genoese,  that 
they  should  help  the  emperor  against  the  enemies  of 
Christendom,  were  unheeded.  It  was  in  vain  that  John 
endeavoured  to  enlist  the  great  condottiere  Hawkwood 
in  his  service.  He  himself,  on  his  way  homewards,  was 
arrested  for  debt  at  Venice  ;  and  he  found  himself  at 
last  obliged  to  conclude  a  humiliating  treaty  with  the 
Turks. b 

The  advance  of  these  assailants  continued  without 
check.  In  1395  Bajazet,  who  from  the  brilliant  rapidity  of 
his  movements  acquired  the  name  of  Ilderim  (lightning)? 
penetrated  into  Hungary,  and  boasted  an  intention  of  sub¬ 
duing  Germany  and  Italy,  and  of  feeding  his  horses  with 
oats  at  the  high  altar  of  St.  Peter’s  at  Rome.d  The  princes 
and  nobles  of  France  were  roused  by  an  embassy  from 
king  Sigismund  of  Hungary  to  hasten  to  his  aid  against 
the  infidel  invaders  ;  and  a  brilliant  array  of  100,000  men 
set  out,  vaunting  that,  if  the  sky  should  fall,  they  would 
support  it  on  the  points  of  their  lances,  and  indulging 
in  visions  of  carrying  their  victorious  arms 
even  to  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem.®  But  A'D' 


*  As  It  was  not  Christmas  day,  the 
privilege  of  reading  the  Gospel  (see  p. 
168)  did  not  come  into  question.  See 
Gibbon,  vi.  219. 

a  Wadding,  1369.  1,  seqq.;  Gibbon, 
vi.  218-19;  Ffoulkes,  ii.  307.  (Seevol. 
v.  p.  165.) 

b  Gibbon,  vi.  219 ;  Finlay,  ii.  579. 

0  Gibbon,  vi.  166.  Chalcocondylas 


translates  the  word  by  \ai\a\p  (78).  Cf. 
G.  Phranzes,  i.  26 ;  Hammer,  i.  216. 
d  Froissart,  xiii.  292;  Gibbon,  vi.  167. 
e  Froissart,  xiii.  292-6;  Monach. 
Sandionys,  xvii.  22,  seqq.  ;  Juv.  des 
Ursins,  124-6 ;  Gibbon,  vi.  167  ;  Mai 
lath,  ii.  c.  19  ;  Hammer,  i.  239  ;  Sis 
mondi,  xii.  72-6,  87-91. 


4T4 


FAILURE  OF  THE  CRUSADE. 


Book  VIII. 


the  foolhardy  confidence  of  these  crusaders — their 
luxury,  licentiousness,  and  want  of  discipline — proved 
fatal  to  the  enterprise.  Disdaining  the  advice  of  Sigis- 
mund,  which  was  founded  on  his  knowledge  of  the 
Turkish  mode  of  warfare,  they  were  utterly 
ept‘  2"'  defeated  at  the  battle  of  Nicopolis.  Some 
of  their  leaders  were  slain ;  others,  among  whom  was 
the  count  of  Nevers  (afterwards  noted  as  John  the 
Fearless,  duke  of  Burgundy),  were  made  prisoners,  and 
were  detained  for  ransom,  before  the  arrival  of  which 
not  a  few  of  them  had  perished  under  the  cruel  usage 
of  their  captors.f  The  failure  of  this  expedition  roused 
much  indignation  against  the  rival  popes,  whose  pre¬ 
tensions  distracted  western  Christendom,  and  made  any 
combined  action  of  its  nations  impossible.5 

In  1391  John  Palseologus  was  succeeded  by  his  son 
Manuel,  who  was  able  to  obtain  the  services  of  John  le 
Maingre,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  soldiers  in  the 
late  unfortunate  crusade,  and  afterwards  famous  under 
the  name  of  Boucicaut.  By  his  advice  Manuel,  who  had 
already  applied  by  letter  both  to  Boniface  IX.  and  to 
the  French  king,h  undertook  in  1400  a  journey  into 
western  Europe  for  the  purpose  of  begging  assistance.1 
Both  in  France  and  in  England  he  was  received  with 
great  honours  ;k  but  although  Charles  VI.,  in  addition  to 
bestowing  a  pension  on  him  until  his  fortunes  should 


f  Mdm.  de  Boucicaut,  in  Petitot,  vi. 
454,  seqq. ;  Mon.  Sandion.  xvii.  27, 
seqq. ;  Juv.  des  Ursins,  126-7  >  Froiss. 
t.  xiii.  1.  iv.  52,  55,  58 ;  Chalcocondylas, 
1.  ii.  pp.  39-40,  ed.  Paris,  1650 ;  Ducas, 
13,  p.  26  ;  Phranzes,  i.  14  (Patrol.  Gr. 
clvi.)  ;  Gibbon,  vi.  169-70  ;  Michaud, 
v.  280-4  J  Aschbach,  i.  98-105.  Von 
Hammer  says  that  10,000  prisoners 
were  put  to  death,  i.  242. 
s  Martin,  v.  452. 

h  Juv.  des  Ursins,  139;  Mon.  San¬ 
dion.  viii.  8  ;  Rayn.  1398.  40. 


1  Mem.  de  Boucic.  499,  seqq. ;  Ducas, 
c.  14  ;  Mon.  Sand.  xx.  3  ;  Chalcocon¬ 
dylas,  1.  ii.  p.  44.  This  gives  Chalco¬ 
condylas  occasion  to  introduce  some 
curious  sketches  of  the  western  coun¬ 
tries.  See,  e.g.,  his  account  of  Britain 
for  the  strange  habits  of  promiscuous 
intercourse  which  he  imputes  to  the 
English,— for  London,  the  Thames 
and  its  tides,  etc.,  1.  ii.  pp.  48-50. 

k  Mon.  Sand.  xxi.  1  ;  Juv.  des  Ur¬ 
sins,  143  ;  Walsingh.  ii.  247. 


Chap.  IX.  a.d.  1396-1402. 


ARMENIA. 


415 


improve,1  promised  him  1200  fighting  men  for  a  year,111 
and  although  Henry  IV.  vowed  a  crusade,  and  taxed  his 
people  as  if  for  the  relief  of  the  Greek  empire,11  no  effec¬ 
tive  aid  was  to  be  gained.  Manuel,  by  adhering  to  his 
own  religion,0  by  refraining  from  all  interference  in  the 
controversy  between  the  popes,  and  by  passing  through 
Italy  in  the  year  of  jubilee  without  visiting  Rome, 
offended  Boniface  IX.,  who  charged  him  with  irreve¬ 
rence  towards  an  image, p  and  discouraged  the  idea  of 
assisting  him.  He  had  been  forced  to  submit  to  terms 
dictated  by  Bajazet;1*  and  but  for  the  overthrow  of 
that  conqueror  by  Timur,  at  the  battle  of 
Angora,  while  Manuel  was  yet  in  the  west, 
the  fall  of  the  Byzantine  empire s  would  probably  have 
been  no  longer  delayed. 


July  30,  1402. 


II.  During  this  time  there  was  frequent  correspond¬ 
ence  between  the  popes  and  the  Armenian  church,  and 
projects  of  union  were  entertained  with  a  view  to  an 
alliance  against  the  Mussulman  power.1  But  the  Ar¬ 
menians  failed  to  satisfy  the  popes  entirely  as  to  their 
orthodoxy ;  and  the  help  which  they  obtained  from  the 


1  Mon.  Sand,  xxiii.  10. 
m  Boucic.  500. 

n  Rymer,  viii.  174  (renewing  an  order 
of  Richard  II.  two  years  earlier,  ib.  82); 
Pauli,  v.  64.  See  letter  of  excuse  from 
Richard  at  an  earlier  time,  in  Bekyn- 
ton,  Ep.  203. 

0  Juvenal  des  Ursins  says  that  at 
Paris  the  Greeks  “  faisoient  le  service 
de  Dieu  selon  leurs  manieres  et  cere¬ 
monies,  qui  sont  bien  estranges,  et 
alloit  voir  qui  vouloit.”  (143.)  Manuel 
went,  however,  to  divine  service  with 
the  French  king,  who  was  blamed  by 
some  for  so  associating  with  a  schis¬ 
matic.  Mon.  Sand.  xxi.  8. 

p  Gibbon  (vi.  222)  suggests  that  this 
was  probably  apiece  of  sculpture,  such 
as  the  Greeks  were  forbidden  to  vene¬ 


rate. 

1  Ib.  172  ;  Hammer,  i.  247. 

r  Ducas,  16;  Chalcocondylas,  1.  iii.  p. 
82;  Gibbon,  vi.  190 ;  Hammer,  i.  311-14. 

8  It  has  been  commonly  supposed 
that  the  Greeks  were  represented  by 
the  archbishop  of  Kiew  and  others  who 
appeared  at  the  council  of  Constance 
in  Feb.  1418  (V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  1511  ; 
Gibbon,  vi.  225  ;  Flefele,  vii.  342). 
But  in  truth  these  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Byzantine  church  or  empire, 
and  were  sent  by  a  prince  of  Lithuania 
who  had  become  a  convert  to  the  Latin 
church.  See  Mouravieff,  74 ;  Ffoulkes, 
ii.  314. 

1  Eg.,  Rayn.  1317.  8,  seqq.;  1321.  1, 
seqq.  ;  Wadding,  1341.  2-3 ;  Mansi, 
xxv.  655  ;  Hefele,  vii.  570. 


416 


CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE  EAST. 


Book  VTIT. 


west  was  insufficient  to  protect  them  against  their  as¬ 
sailants.  In  1367  Armenia  fell  under  the  yoke  of  the 
Mamelukes ;  and  the  Christians  were  soon  after  exposed 
to  persecution  at  the  hands  of  the  conquerors.11 

In  other  quarters  also,  where  the  Mahometans  ex¬ 
tended  their  conquests,  the  Christians  suffered  severely, 
and  many  were  put  to  death  for  their  religion, x  while 
others  apostatized.? 


III.  The  period  which  we  are  surveying  was  disastrous 
for  the  Christianity  of  the  further  east.  Although  the 
popes  continually  flattered  themselves  with  the  hope  of 
gaining  the  Mongols,  who  were  now  pushing  their  con¬ 
quests  far  and  wide,2  these  for  the  most  part  embraced 
the  religion  of  Islam ;  and  the  hopes  of  conversion 
which  from  time  to  time  were  held  out  by  the  envoys 
of  Asiatic  princes,  on  condition  of  an  alliance  against 
their  Mussulman  or  other  enemies,  invariably  proved  to 
be  delusive.3 

In  China,  where,  as  we  have  already  seen,b  the  Fran¬ 
ciscan  John  of  Monte  Corvino  laboured  until  about  the 
year  1330,  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  was  carried  on 
with  much  success,  chiefly  by  other  members  of  the 
same  order.0  But  in  1369  the  Chinese  drove  out  the 
Mongols,  and  established  a  system  of  jealous  exclusion 


u  Giesel.  II.  iii.  371-8. 
x  Joh.  Cantac.  iv.  14-15.  It  was  be¬ 
lieved  that  the  Jacobites  were  favoured 
because  those  of  Egypt  had  the  power 
of  diverting  the  Nile  from  its  course, 
and  thus  had  a  hold  on  the  sultan  of 
Egypt,  and  for  his  sake,  as  well  as  on 
account  of  the  corn  which  that  country 
exported,  were  treated  with  considera¬ 
tion  by  other  Mahometan  princes. 
Ib.  15. 

y  Giesel.  II.  iii.  378. 
z  E.g.y  Rayn.  1318.  1,  seqq.  ;  1333. 
31,  seqq.;  1340.  75,  seqq.  Wadding  is 


full  as  to  the  share  taken  by  the  Fran¬ 
ciscans  ;  and  there  is  a  collection  of 
letters  in  the  appendix  to  Mosheim’s 
Hist.  Eccl.  Tartarorum.  See,  too. 
Col.  Yule’s  ‘Cathay  and  the  way 
thither.’ 

a  Giesel.  II.  iii.  358. 

b  Vol.  vi.  p.  362. 

c  Joh.  Vitodur.  in  Eccard,  i.  1895-7; 
Wadding;  Mosh.  Hist.  Eccl.  Tart. 
iii,  seqq.  There  were  some  English¬ 
men  among  these  missionaries.  Mosh. 
112-13,  131. 


Chap.  IX.  a. d.  1303-1418.  ASIA — LITHUANIA.  417 

of  all  foreigners ;  in  consequence  of  which  the  Chris¬ 
tianity  of  China  soon  became  extinct. d 

The  great  Asiatic  conqueror  Timur  (or  Tamerlane) 
appears  to  have  observed  an  equivocal  policy  in  matters 
of  religion,  and  is  described  by  some  as  friendly  to 
Christians  ;e  but,  whatever  his  own  belief  may  have 
been,  he  outwardly,  and  as  a  matter  of  policy,  at  least, 
conformed  to  Islam.1  At  the  end  of  the  period,  a  few 
scattered  communities,  chiefly  Nestorian,  were  all  that 
remained  to  represent  the  Christianity  of  Asia. 


IV.  In  Europe  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century 
witnessed  the  conversion  of  the  last  considerable  people 
which  had  until  then  professed  heathenism.  Lithuania, s 
under  its  great-prince  Jagello,  had  by  conquests  from 
Russia  become  a  kingdom  in  all  but  name.  In  1382 
Jagello,  whose  mother  had  been  a  Christian,  made  pro¬ 
posals  of  marriage  to  Hedwig,  who  by  the  death  of  her 
father,  Lewis,  king  of  Hungary  and  Poland,  had  become 
heiress  of  the  latter  kingdom.  He  offered  that  he  and 
all  his  people  should  be  baptized,  and  that  his  territories 
should  be  united  with  Poland.  The  advantages  of  this 
arrangement  outweighed  both  the  contract  into  which 
she  had  already  entered  with  an  Austrian  prince,  and 
her  personal  dislike  of  Jagello. h  Jagello  was  baptized 
by  the  name  of  Ladislausj  Bishopricks  were  established 
at  Wilna  and  in  seven  other  towns ;  and  the  king  set 
vigorously  about  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise  as  to  the 


d  Schrockh,  xxx.  525. 
e  Antonin.  454.  See  Th.  Niem,  ii. 
29,  30  ;  iii.  42. 

f  Mosh.  Hist.  Tart.  116-29;  Schrockh^ 
xxx.  526.  There  is  a  letter  of  Henry 
IV.  congratulating  Tinhir  on  his  vic¬ 
tory  over  Bajazet  ;  and  in  other  letters 
there  is  frequent  mention  of  an  English¬ 
man,  named  John  Greenlaw,  as  “arch¬ 
bishop  of  the  east.”  Pauli,  v.  65. 

VOL.  VII. 


g  As  to  earlier  dealings  with  this 
country,  see  Rayn.  1323.  19  ;  1324.  45, 
seqq.  It  was  said  that  the  Teutonic 
order  cared  more  for  getting  tribute 
from  their  neighbours  as  heathens  than 
for  converting  and  emancipating  them. 
Joh.  Vitodur.  1874. 

h  Rayn.  1382.  26;  1386.  14;  Schrockh 
xxx.  493-4.  1  Rayn.  1386.  4. 


27 


4l8  LITHUANIA,  FINLAND,  LAPLAND.  Book  VIII. 

conversion  of  his  people.  These  were  at  first  unwilling 
to  change  their  religion  ;  but  when  they  saw  temples 
and  altars  overthrown,  the  sacred  groves  cut  down,  and 
the  serpents  which  had  been  objects  of  worship  killed, 
their  faith  in  their  old  gods  was  shaken,  and  they  rushed 
to  baptism  in  such  multitudes  that  it  was  found  neces¬ 
sary  to  lead  them  in  companies  to  the  bank  of  the  river, 
where  a  whole  band  was  sprinkled  at  once,  and  all  the 
members  of  it  received  the  same  baptismal  name.k 
Ladislaus  himself  travelled  about  the  country,  teaching 
the  Lord’s  prayer  and  the  decalogue ;  and  the  work  of 
conversion  was  forwarded  by  the  white  woollen  dresses, 
of  Polish  manufacture,  which  were  bestowed  on  the 
neophytes.1  Although,  however,  the  profession  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  thus  became  general  in  Lithuania,  aLneas  Sylvius 
cites  a  Camaldolese  monk,  named  Jerome  of  Prague, 
who  visited  the  country  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  as  testifying  that  the  worship  of  fire  and  of 
serpents  was  still  widely  kept  up  in  it.ra 

The  conversion  of  the  Finns  and  of  the  Laplanders  is 
also  referred  to  this  period ;  but  it  would  seem  to  have 
hardly  reached  more  deeply  than  to  the  reception  of 
baptism,  and  of  the  priestly  benediction  in  marriage.11  • 

k  Rayn.  1387.  15  ;  Schrockh,  xxx.  council  of  Basel.  See  below,  Book 
494-5.  See  above,  vol.  iv.  p.  81.  IX.  c.  i  ;  Ambros.  Camald.  Epp.  i.  2  ; 

1  Rayn.  1387.  15  ;  Schrockh,  xxx.  v.  28 ;  xx.  15-17,  24,  etc.  (Martene, 
494-6.  See  vol.  iii.  p.  468.  Coll.  Ampl.  iii.) 

m  DeEuropa,  c.  26,  pp.  417-18.  This  n  Schrockh,  xxx.  499. 

Jerome  afterwards  took  part  in  the 


Chap.  X. 


419 


CHAPTER  X. 


SECTARIES — MYSTICS. 


I.  While  the  church  was  agitated  by  the  reforming 
movements  of  Wyclif  and  Hus,  some  of  the  older  parties 
which  had  incurred  its  condemnation  continued  to  exist, 
and  to  draw  on  themselves  fresh  censures  and  penalties. 

The  Cathari,  although  almost  extinguished  in  southern 
France  by  the  wars  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  by  the 
relentless  vigilance  of  the  inquisition, a  were  very  nume¬ 
rous  in  Bosnia  and  the  neighbouring  regions  ;b  and  the 
popes  found  little  inclination  on  the  part  of  successive 
kings  of  Hungary  to  exert  themselves  for  the  suppression 
of  the  sect.0 

The  Waldenses  also,  as  appears  from  the  records  of 
the  inquisition  of  Toulouse,  were  among  the  victims  of 
that  tribunals  They  are  found  in  other  parts  of  France, e 
as  also  in  Germany,  where  many  of  them  suffered  death 
as  heretics  ;f  and  it  appears  to  have  been  in  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  this  time  that  they  made  their  way  in  con¬ 
siderable  numbers  into  the  valleys  of  Piedmont, g  where 
fanciful  history  and  impossible  etymology  represent  them 


a  Giesel.  II.  iii.  301.  See  the  ‘Liber 
Sententiarum  Inquisitionis  Tolosanae,’ 
1307-23,  annexed  to  Limborch’s  ‘Hist. 
Inquisitionis.’  The  cagots,  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  Lee  X. ,  in  1514,  claimed  to 
be  descended  from  the  cathari.  Giesel. 
1.  c. 

b  Of  this  sort  were  perhaps  the  here¬ 
tics  in  Austria  who  are  mentioned  by 
John  of  Winterthur,  in  Eccard,  i.  1834. 
Many  of  them  were  burnt. 

0  Rayn.  1340.  73,  etc.;  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  301-2. 

d  See,  for  the  cases  of  Waldenses,  as 
distinguished  from  others,  the  table 


opposite  p.  1  of  the  Lib.  Sentent.  ; 
and  Maitland,  ‘  Facts  and  Documents, 
218. 

e  Gregory  XI.  complains  of  them  to 
the  king  of  France  as  existing  in  Dau- 
phiny.  Savoy,  etc.,  and  as  favoured  by 
the  nobles.  Rayn.  1373.  20  ;  1375.  26  ; 
Wadd.  1375.  12,  seqq. 

f  Giesel.  II.  iii.  333-4 ;  Mailath,  i. 
192. 

e  Giesel.  303,  The  first  mention  of 
them  in  the  diocese  of  Turin  is  in  a 
decree  of  Otho  IV.,  a.d.  1x98,  autho¬ 
rizing  the  bishop  to  extirpate  these 
“  tares  ” ;  but  it  does  not  appear  in 


420 


WALDENSES. 


Book  VIII. 


as  having  lived  even  from  the  time  of  the  apostles.h  In 
the  years  1402-3,  the  famous  Spanish  Dominican  Vincent 
Ferrer  was  employed  in  that  region  for  the  conversion 
of  the  sectaries,  among  whom  he  says  that  there  were 
Cathari  as  well  as  Waldenses;*  but,  although  his  elo¬ 
quence  is  said  to  have  been  accompanied  by  miraculous 
circumstances — that  the  most  distant  persons  in  his 
audience  heard  him  as  distinctly  as  the  nearest,  and 
that  his  preaching  was  understood  by  all,  although  they 
might  be  ignorant  of  the  language  in  which  he  spoke — 
its  force  was  not  sufficient  to  root  out  the  opinions 
against  which  it  was  directed.k  There  was  much  perse¬ 
cution  of  the  Waldenses  in  northern  Italy  during  the 


what  part  of  that  large  diocese  they 
were.  There  are  some  traces  of  them 
in  the  same  region  during  the  thirteenth 
century,  and  in  1312  they  were  nume¬ 
rous  in  certain  valleys — their  “  chap¬ 
ters  ”  being  sometimes  attended  by  500 
persons.  (Herzog,  xvii.  516.)  In  1332, 
John  XXII.  complains  that  they  had 
killed  a  parish-priest  whom  they  sus¬ 
pected  of  having  given  information 
against  them  to  the  inquisitor,  and  had 
besieged  the  inquisitor  himself  in  a 
castle.  Wadd.  1332.  6. 

h  See  vol.  v.  p.  327. 

1  Acta  SS.  Apr.  5,  480  ;  Rayn.  1403. 
24.  Vincent  Ferrer  was  bom  in  1357, 
died  in  1419,  and  was  canonized  by 
Pius  II.  in  1458.  Acta  SS.  478,  522. 
See,  however,  as  to  dates,  Quetif- 
Echard,  i.  763-4. 

k  The  miracle  as  to  language  is  vari¬ 
ously  related.  Nicolas  of  Clemanges 
says  that  Vincent  (whose  piety  he 
highly  extols),  immediately  on  landing 
in  Italy,  spoke  Italian  like  a  native, 
and  that  while  speaking  in  Italian  he 
was  understood  by  persons  who  knew 
nothing  of  the  language.  (Ep.  113.) 
But,  according  to  his  biographer  in  the 
Acta  SS.  (c.  14),  he  always  preached  in 
his  native  tongue,  which  persons  unac¬ 
quainted  with  it  heard  as  if  it  were 
their  own.  The  like  is  related  of  St 


Antony  of  Padua  (lb.  June  13,  p.  216  ; 
Hist.  Litt.  xxiv.  105),  and  of  St.  Ber- 
nardine  of  Feltre  (Wadding,  xiv.  432). 
To  a  reader  who  looks  slightly  at  Vin¬ 
cent’s  sermons,  one  of  the  most  strik¬ 
ing  things  is  the  coolness  with  which 
he  passes  off  legendary  tales — or  possi¬ 
bly  his  own  inventions — as  if  they  were 
authentic  scripture.  Thus,  in  a  ser¬ 
mon  on  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  we  read — “  Et  communicavit 
seipsum,  sicut  sacerdos  se  communicat, 
deinde  alios  ;  nec  frangendo  placentu- 
lam  frangebatur  corpus  Christi  sicut 
modo  frangitur  imago  in  fractione 
speculi.  Deinde  communicavit  apos- 
tolos,  dicens,  ‘  Accipite  et  manducate, 
hoc  est  corpus  muum.’  ‘  Demine/ 
dixit  Petrus,  ‘  iste  panis  est  corpus 
vestrum  ?  ’  *  Petre/  dixit  Christus, 

‘non  est  panis,  sed  est  corpus  meum 
ideo  communica.’  Dixit  Petrus  post- 
quam  communicavit,  *  O  Domine,  iste 
cibus  me  comfortavit  totum,  et  animam 
meamilluminavit.’  Tunc  dixit  Christus 
sibi,  ‘  Ego  do  vobis  potestatem  idem 
faciendi.’  Communicavit  etiam  Judam, 
etc.”  (Sermones,  Pars  Hyemalis,  724, 
ed.  Antv.  1572.)  In  the  next  sermon 
there  is  a  very  strange  narrative  as 
the  blessed  Virgin  and  the  preparations 
for  the  last  supper. 


Chap.  X.  a.d.  1303-1418. 


BEGHARDS. 


421 


fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries,  and  in  consequence 
of  this  many  fled  to  Apulia  and  Calabria,1  where  their 
settlements  continued  to  exist,  until  in  1560  they  were 
exterminated  by  a  massacre  which  is  one  of  the  blackest 
crimes  connected  with  the  suppression  of  the  reforma¬ 
tion  in  Italy.m 


II.  Other  parties  of  separatists  from  the  church  were 
spoken  of  under  the  general  name  of  beghards,  which  in 
Italy,  Spain,  and  southern  France,  commonly  designated 
fraticelli,11  but  in  Germany  and  Flanders  the  sectaries  of 
the  “Free  Spirit.”0  Of  these  Cologne  was  the  chief  seat, 
and  many  of  them  suffered  there p  and  in  other  towns 
of  the  Rhine  country.  1  The  secret  progress  of  their 
pantheistic  and  immoral  doctrines  was  favoured  by  the 
difficulty  of  distinguishing  between  such  beghards  and 
the  harmless  devotees  who  were  confounded  with  them 
under  a  common  name ;  while  the  more  dangerous 
class  studied  to  conceal  their  peculiarities  by  affecting 
a  likeness  in  dress  and  manners  to  those  beghards  and 
beguines  whom  the  popes  by  repeated  declarations 
endeavoured  to  preserve  from  molestation.1-  It  is,  in¬ 
deed,  probable  that  societies  of  beghards  which  were 
originally  orthodox  became  gradually  comipted  by  the 
secret  introduction  of  unsound  opinions.5  The  name 


1  Herzog,  xvii.  5x7-18. 
m  Giesel.  III.  i.  51 1. 
n  lb.  II.  iii.  304-5  ;  Eymeric,  281, 
441 ;  Liber  Senxent.  298  ;  Baluz.  Misc. 
i.  481 ;  ii.  288,  581,  seqq.,  etc.  See 
Mosheim  de  Beghardis.  c.  iv.  Wad¬ 
ding  labours  anxiously,  but  in  vain, 
to  deny  the  Franciscan  origin  of  the 
fraticelli;  e.g.  1317.  25-45. 

0  J.  Vitodur.  in  Eccard,  i.  1906 ; 
Clementin.  V.  iii.  3  ;  Rayn.  1312.  17, 
seqq.  ;  Mosh.  de  Begh.  254,  seqq.; 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  223,  306.  For  the  sect 
of  the  Free  Spirit,  see  vol.  vi.  p.  391. 


p  J.  Vitodur,  r8i4. 

1  Mosh.  de  Begh.  270,  295,  seqq.  ; 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  305-7.  See  as  to  count 
Ulric  of  Schaumburg,  a  great  Austrian 
noble  who  belonged  to  this  sect,  Mai- 
lath,  i.  162.  A  bishop  of  Magdeburg, 
having  discovered  some  women  “de 
alto  Spiritu  ”  in  1336,  imprisoned  them 
for  a  short  time,  and  having  thus 
brought  them  to  recant,  set  them  at 
liberty.  Mosh.  298. 

r  See  vol.  vi.  p.  388  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
220,  222,  306. 

8  Lechler,  i.  159. 


422 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  HERESY. 


Book  VIII. 


of  Lollards,  which  eventually  marked  the  followers  of 
Wyclif,  is  found  as  early  as  1309,  when  it  seems  to 
be  applied  to  the  sect  of  the  Free  Spirit  in  Holland 
and  Brabant/  and  was  used  indifferently  with  that  of 
beghard.u  Another  name  given  to  sectaries  of  the  same 
kind  was  that  of  turlupins  ;  those  who  were  so  styled  in 
the  Isle  of  France,  about  the  year  1372,  are  described  as 
having  held  that  nothing  which  is  natural  is  matter  for 
shame  ;x  and  a  woman  of  the  sect,  Mary  of  Valenci¬ 
ennes,  is  spoken  of  by  Gerson  as  having  written  a  book 
“  with  almost  infinite  subtlety  ”  on  the  text,  “  Have 
charity,  and  do  what  thou  wilt.”y 


HI.  The  popes  laboured  to  secure  the  co-operation 
of  the  secular  power  for  the  suppression  of  heresy.  We 
have  seen  how,  in  a  former  age,  the  emperor  Frederick  II. 
attempted  to  rescue  his  own  reputation  for  orthodoxy 
by  the  severity  of  his  laws  and  proceedings  against 
sectaries;2  and  in  other  cases  the  opposite  motive  of 
a  desire  to  stand  well  with  the  papacy  led  to  a  course 
which  was  practically  the  same.  Thus  the  emperor 
Charles  IV.,  in  the  code  which  has  from  him  the  name 
of  Carolina ,  ordered  that  obstinate  heretics  should  be 
made  over  by  the  secular  to  the  ecclesiastical  authorities, 
in  order  to  be  burnt,  and  that  receivers  of  heretics  should 
forfeit  their  property ;  but  the  opposition  of  the  Bohe¬ 
mians  was  so  decided  that  these  severe  laws  could  not 
be  put  into  execution.21 


1  See  above,  p.  295;  Giesel.  III.  ii. 
221.  u  Mosh.  279. 

x  “De  nulla  re  naturaliter  data  eru- 
bescendum  esse.”  Gerson,  Serm.  de  S. 
Ludov.,  Opp.  iii.  1345;  cf.  De  Exam. 
Doctrin.  ib.  i.  19 ;  Bayle,  art.  Turlu¬ 
pins  ;  Mosh.  413,  416,  seqq. 

y  “  Adducens  pro  se  illud  ab  apos- 
tolo  [?]  sumptum — Charitatem  habe,  et 
fac  guod  vis.”  (Gers.  De  libris  caute 


legendis.  Opp.  i.  55.)  A  party  in  Ire¬ 
land,  a.d.  1335,  is  said  to  have  main¬ 
tained  that  Christ  suffered  for  his  own 
sins,  and  to  have  denied  the  authority 
of  the  pope  and  the  virtue  of  the  sacra¬ 
ments.  Theiner,  Monum.  269,  299. 
z  Vol.  iii.  p.  158,  380. 
a  Pelzel,  i.  317;  Schrockh,  xxxiv. 
466-7. 


Chap.  X.  a.d.  1303-1418.  THE  INQUISITION. 


423 


The  inquisition  was  now  extended  in  Germany,  France, 
Spain,  Poland,  and  other  countries. b  Boniface  VIII. 
had  endeavoured  to  regulate  its  proceedings,  and  Cle¬ 
ment  V.,  at  the  council  of  Vienne,  found  himself  obliged 
to  admit  that  in  many  cases  the  inquisitors  had  given 
just  cause  of  complaint.  He  therefore  decreed  that  the 
bishops  should  be  associated  with  these,  who  had  until 
then  been  independent  of  the  episcopal  power;  and 
while  each  of  the  orders  was  authorized  to  proceed  in 
some  respects  without  reference  to  the  other,  the  co¬ 
operation  of  both  bishops  and  inquisitors  was  in  some 
cases  required.0  In  some  countries,  such  as  England, 
however,  the  inquisition  was  never  able  to  establish 
itself ;d  and  elsewhere,  as  in  the  south  of  France,  it 
found  itself  hampered  by  the  unwillingness  of  the  secu¬ 
lar  authorities  to  assist,  by  their  interference  with  its 
sentences,  or  even  by  their  direct  opposition.6  To  the 
questions  of  heresy  which  had  engaged  the  labours  of 
the  inquisitors  was  added  in  Germany  the  duty  of  in¬ 
quiring  into  the  practice  of  witchcraft/  The  belief  and 
the  fear  of  this  unhallowed  art  became  rife,g  and  secular 
authorities,  as  well  as  those  of  the  church,  concerned 
themselves  with  discovering  and  punishing  those  who 
were  supposed  to  be  guilty  of  it.h  Multitudes  of  wretches 


b  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  472.  Among  the 
books  destroyed  by  inquisitors  were 
poems  of  the  Carolingian  cycle,  in  which 
the  clergy  were  satirized.  Hist.  Litt. 
xxiv.  97.  c  Clementin.  V.  iii.  1. 

d  See  a  letter  from  Benedict  XII.  to 
Edward  III.  in  Rayn.  1335.  60. 

e  Martin,  v.  309.  Eymeric  gives 
forms  for  excommunication  of  secular 
officials  who  abet  heretics  or  refuse  to 
aid  the  inquisition ;  also  a  form  of  inter¬ 
dict  on  the  places  where  such  persons 
have  authority.  396,  seqq.,  560-2. 

f  Eymeric,  335  ;  Glossa  Archidiac. 
in  VI.  Decret.  ib.  202  ;  Schrockh, 
xxxiii.  168;  see  Janus,  275,  seqq. 


g  Nic.  de  Clemangis,  de  Studio 
Theol.  in  D’Achery,  i.  479 ;  W.  Nang, 
contin.  ib.  iii.  81  ;  Gerson,  i.  210,  seqq. 

h  Hase,  337.  It  is  not  clear  whether 
we  should  range  under  the  head  of 
heresy  or  under  that  of  witchcraft  the 
fate  of  Cecco  [ i.e .  Francis]  of  Ascoli, 
who  in  1327  was  burnt  at  Florence  by 
the  inquisition  for  a  tract  in  which  he 
applied  principles  of  fatalism,  derived 
from  astrology,  to  the  coming  of  anti¬ 
christ  and  of  the  Saviour.  (G.  Villani, 
x.  39.)  Sometimes  the  aid  of  sorcery 
was  called  in  for  purposes  which  in 
themselves  were  lawful.  A  council  at 
Langres  directs  that  people  should  be 


4 24  WITCHCRAFT — FLAGELLANCY.  Book  VIII. 

suffered  in  consequence — many  of  them  after  having 
confessed  the  commission  of  monstrous  and  impossible 
crimes.1  One  writer  reckons  the  number  of  sorcerers 
who  were  burnt  within  a  century  and  a  half  at  30,000, 
or  more,  and  believes  that  but  for  this  wholesome 
severity  the  entire  world  would  have  been  ruined  by 
magical  practices.11 


IV.  The  practice  of  associating  for  penitential  flagella¬ 
tion,  which  had  been  suppressed  in  the  thirteenth  cen¬ 
tury  on  account  of  the  fanatical  excesses  connected  with 
it,1  was  still  revived  from  time  to  time.  In  seasons  of 
public  calamity,  when  trust  in  the  ordinary  resources  of 
the  church  was  shaken,  this  exercise  was  again  and  again 
taken  up  by  multitudes  as  a  more  powerful  means  of 
propitiating  the  wrath  of  heaven.™  The  appearance  of 
a  flagellant  party  after  the  ravages  of  the  Black  Death, 
and  the  condemnation  of  flagellancy  by  Clement  VI., 
have  been  already  related.11  One  Conrad  Schmidt,  a 
Thuringian,  on  finding  the  principle  of  flagellation  thus 


taught  that  a  good  object,  such  as  re¬ 
covery  of  a  child’s  health,  or  of  stolen 
things,  as  church-plate,  etc.,  does  not 
excuse  resort  to  unhallowed  arts. 
(Rayn.  1404.  22.)  See  as  to  the  pre¬ 
tensions,  failure,  and  punishment  of 
two  persons,  professedly  Austin  friars, 
who  undertook  to  cure  Charles  VI.  of 
his  madness,  Monach.  Sandionys.  xviii. 
2  ;  xix.  10;  Juv.  des  Ursins,  136. 

1  For  instance,  a  woman  who  was 
burnt  at  Toulouse  in  1275  confessed 
“se  multoties  rem  veneream  cum 
Sathana  habuisse,  et  ex  eo  monstrum 
peperisse,  cujus  caput  erat  lupinum, 
cauda  serpentina,  et  reliquiae  partes 
corporis  similes  membris  hominis ; 
illudque  monstrum  nutrivisse  per  duos 
annos  carnibus  infantum  anniculorum, 
quos  nocte  furabatur,  et  post  duos 
illos  annos  monstrum  illud  aufugisse, 
et  visum  amplius  non  fuisse  ;  se  mon- 


struosum  hunc  partum  edidisse  anno 
aetatis  53,  quo  tempore  vidua  erat.” 
(Chron.  Will.  Bardin,  in  Hist,  de  Lan- 
gued.  t.  iv.  Preuves,  col.  5.)  There 
is  curious  matter  in  the  proceedings 
against  Dame  Alice  Kyteler  by  Richard 
Ledrede,  bishop  of  Ossory,  1324  (pub¬ 
lished  by  the  Camden  Society).  It 
appears  that  this  bishop  (svho  held  his 
see  forty-two  years)  was  fond  of  charg¬ 
ing  people  groundlessly  with  witchcraft 
and  heresy.  See  the  letter  from  Ed- 
w'ard  III.  to  Innocent  VI.  (about  1358), 
begging  that  he  may  be  set  aside. 
Letters  from  Northern  Registers 
(Chron.  and  Mem.),  403-6. 

k  Paramus,  Inquis.  Sicula,  quoted  by 
Rayn.  1404.  23. 

1  See  vol.  vi.  p.  237. 
m  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  447  ;  Giesel.  II. 
iii-  3I3-  "  Pp.  124-5. 


Chap.  X.  a.d.  1303-1418.  CONRAD  SCHMIDT. 


425 


discountenanced  by  the  church,  developed  it  into  a 
system  hostile  both  to  the  clergy  and  to  their  doctrines.0 
He  taught  that  flagellation  was  a  baptism  of  blood ;  that 
it  superseded  the  sacraments  and  other  rites  of  the 
church,  which  were  said  to  be  ineffectual  on  account 
of  the  vices  of  the  clergy ;  that  salvation  was  possible 
for  such  persons  only  as  should  flog  themselves  at  least 
on  every  Friday  at  the  hour  of  the  Saviour’s  passion ; 
that  this  was  the  new  faith  which  saved  all,  whereas  the 
old  faith  of  the  gospel  condemned  all ;  that  the  Saviour, 
by  changing  water  into  wine,  had  signified  that  in  the 
last  days  the  baptism  of  water  was  to  be  superseded  by 
the  baptism  of  blood.P  The  party  claimed  to  represent 
the  flagellants  of  sixty  years  before,  from  which  time  it 
was  that  they  supposed  the  ministry  and  sacraments  of 
the  church  to  have  lost  their  power.  They  had  wild 
prophetical  fancies — that  Conrad  Schmidt  himself  and 
one  of  his  associates,  who  was  burnt  as  a  heretic,  were 
Enoch  and  Elijah — the  souls  of  those  ancient  saints 
having  been  infused  into  them  at  their  birth  ;  and  that 
at  the  last  day,  which  was  fixed  for  the  year  1364, 
Schmidt  was  to  be  the  judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead. 
With  these  and  other  strange  opinions  were  combined 
the  principles  of  dissimulation  and  evasion  which  are 
imputed  to  many  kinds  of  sectaries ;  the  flagellants  were 
confounded  with  other  parties  under  the  general  name 
of  beghards ;  and  their  rule  required  them  to  conform 
outwardly  to  the  church,  and  to  punish  themselves  by 
stripes  in  secret  for  this  compliance. ^  In  1372  Gregory 
XI.  instructed  an  inquisitor  in  Germany  that  these 
people  should  be  treated  as  heretics  on  account  of  their 

0  Th.  Vrie,  In  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  86  ;  126 ;  Gobel.  Pers.  336 ;  Fwrstemann, 

Giesel.  II.  iii.  316-17.  163;  Giesel.  II.  ill.  319.  One  odd 

P  Gobcl.  Pers.  336;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  precept  was  that  the  best  way  of  giving 
17.  alms  was  in  the  shape  of  hot  bread 

1  Th.  Vrie,  in  V.  d.  Ilardt,  i.  S6-7,  (Genesis  xviii.  6  !).  Ib.  318. 


426 


WHITE  PENITENTS. 


Cook  VIII. 


denial  of  the  sacraments;1-  and  this  order  was  carried 
out  at  various  times  by  burning  many  of  them.  Perhaps 
the  most  remarkable  persecution  was  that  of  1414,  when 
about  ninety  of  Schmidt’s  adherents  were  burnt  at 
Sangershausen  in  Thuringia,  and  many  others  in  other 
German  towns.8 

In  Italy  also  the  same  fanaticism  appeared  from  time 
to  timed  And  in  1399  a  great  movement — excited  by* 
two  priests  who  are  variously  described  as  having  come 
from  Spain,  from  Provence,  and  from  Scotland — began 
in  Lombardy,  whence  it  proceeded  southwards  to  Flo¬ 
rence,  Rome,  and  Naples.  The  penitents  professed  to 
have  received  a  revelation  from  the  blessed  Virgin  that 
her  Divine  Son’s  wrath  was  provoked  by  the  sins  ot 
mankind.  They  were  dressed  in  white,  and  the  numbers 
of  their  various  companies,  in  which  persons  of  all  ranks 
were  mixed,  are  reckoned  at  from  10,000  to  40,000. 
They  chanted  the  Stabat  Mater  with  vehement  suppli¬ 
cations  for  mercy;  they  declined  all  sustenance  except 
bread  and  water,  fasted  much,  and  refused  to  make  use 
of  beds  during  the  time  of  their  pilgrimage.  When  one 
company  had  finished  its  devotions  at  Rome,  it  was 
succeeded  by  another.  Multitudes  were  drawn  to  join 
the  penitents ;  there  was  a  profuse  show  of  contrition  in 
confessing  of  sins,  enemies  were  reconciled,  and  in  other 
ways  there  was  much  amendment  of  life.  But  Boniface 
IX.  condemned  the  movement  as  being  opposed  to  the 


r  Rayn.  1372.  33. 

8  Th.  Vrie,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  126 
(where,  after  the  church  had  complained 
of  the  flagellants,  the  Saviour  is  repre¬ 
sented  as  consoling  her  by  mentioning 
these  burnings) ;  Gobel.  Pers.  337  ; 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  318. 

4  E.g.,  Murat.  Antiq.  Ital.  vi.  479; 
Cron,  di  S.  Miniato,  in  Baluz.  Misc.  i. 
458  (a.d.  1311).  Innocent  VI.  wrote  in 
1361  to  the  archbishops  of  Benevento, 


Naples,  and  Salerno  about  a  similar 
affair.  Theodoric  of  Niem  connects 
the  white  penitents  with  some  *  trufa- 
tores  '  who  found  their  way  from  Scot¬ 
land  to  Italy,  where  they  made  cruci¬ 
fixes  sweat  by  tricks,  and  drew  many 
persons  into  fanaticism  which  ended 
in  licentiousness.  One  of  them  was 
burnt  at  Acquapendente,  and  the  others 
contrived  to  escape,  ii.  26.  See  Murat. 


Chap.  X.  a.d.  1303-14x8.  FLAGELLANTS 


427 


discipline  of  the  church;  and  its  good  effects  soon 
passed  away.u  About  the  same  time  there  was  a  fresh 
outbreak  of  flagellation  in  Flanders, x  and  Henry  IV.  of 
England  issued  a  proclamation  by  which  it  was  ordered 
that,  if  any  of  the  party  should  arrive  in  an  English  port, 
they  should  not  be  suffered  to  land.y 

A  few  years  later,  St.  Vincent  Ferrer  appeared  as  the 
leader  of  a  party  of  flagellants;2  and  from  the  fact  of  his 
countenancing  such  a  movement  we  may  infer  that  it 
was  free  from  the  fanatical  excesses,  and  from  the  enmity 
to  the  clergy,  which  had  marked  the  flagellants  of  earlier 
days.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  been  convinced  by 
the  arguments  of  Gerson,  and  he  wrote  to  the  council 
of  Constance  that  he  submitted  to  the  authority  of  that 
assembly  in  all  things,  and  abandoned  the  manner  of 
devotion  which  had  been  called  in  question.3. 


u  Storia  di  Parma,  in  Murat,  xii.  752  ; 
Annal.  Mediol.  ib.  xvi.  832  ;  Annal. 
Bergom.  ib.  917-21  ;  Sozom.  Pistorien- 
sis,  ib.  xi68;  Chron.  Placent.  ib.  559  ; 
Chron.  Patav.  ib.  xvii.  1 166-8  ;  Annal. 
Gennens,  ib.  1170 ;  Leon.  Aret.  ib. 
xix.  919 ;  Chron.  Aquit.  in  Murat. 
Antiq.  vi.  861 ;  Antonin.  445  ;  Platina, 
277 ;  Walsingh.  ii.  242-3 ;  Raynald. 
1400.  5;  D’Argentre,  I.  ii.  157;  Forste- 
mann,  104,  seqq.  Muratori  is  very  fa¬ 
vourable  to  these  penitents,  and  traces 
to  them  and  to  the  earlier  flagellants 
some  confraternities  which  continued 
to  exist  in  his  own  time.  Antiq.  Ital. 
vi.  474,  479-82  ;  Annal.  VIII.  ii.  334-5. 

x  Corn.  Zantfliet,  in  Martene,  Coll. 
Ampl.  v.  358.  y  Lingard,  iii.  464. 

z  See  Acta  SS.,  Apr.  5,  p.  492 ; 
Forstem.  147. 

a  Gerson,  ii.  658,  660 ;  P.  de  Alliaco, 
Ib.  659  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  3x9  ;  Forstem. 
148-52,  158  ;  Heller,  in  Herzog,  art. 
Ferrer.  Vincent  was  invited  to  the 
council,  partly  on  account  of  this  ques¬ 
tion,  and  partly  in  the  hope  of  using 
his  influence  over  Benedict  XIII.,  but 
he  did  not  attend  it  in  person.  (Schwab, 


709.)  Gerson  pays  him  the  compliment 
of  saying  that  his  name  and  his  spirit¬ 
ual  conquests  seem  to  show  that  he  is 
figured  by  him  who  in  the  Apocalypse 
(vi.  2)  is  described  as  riding  on  a  white 
horse,  “  et  data  est  ei  corona,  et  exiit 
vincens,  ut  vinceret.”  (ii.  658.)  Some¬ 
what  akin  to  the  practices  of  the  flagel¬ 
lants  was  the  “  dancing  mania”  which 
broke  out  in  1374.  At  Aix-la-Chapelle 
and  elsewhere,  men  and  women,  hold¬ 
ing  each  other  by  the  hands,  danced 
and  leaped  until  they  were  exhausted 
—calling,  it  is  said,  on  names  of  devils, 
“  videlicet  Friskes  et  similia.”  At 
Liege,  the  common  people  believed 
this  to  be  a  judgment  because  they 
had  been  badly  baptized  by  concubi- 
nary  priests,  against  whom  they  were 
about  to  direct  their  vengeance  ;  but 
the  clergy  had  recourse  to  exorcisms, 
by  which  the  dancers  were  brought  to 
a  right  mind.  They  then  accounted  for 
their  leaping  by  saying  that  they  had 
fancied  themselves  in  a  river  of  blood  ; 
whereupon  the  clergy  were  more 
honoured  than  before.  (Pet.  Herentals, 
in  Baluz.  Vitse  Pap.  Aven.  i.  484-5 


428 


MYSTICISM. 


Book  VIII. 


V.  Very  different  in  character  from  these  wilder  move¬ 
ments  was  the  mysticism  which  now  appeared  as  pre¬ 
vailing  widely  in  Germany.  The  origin  and  growth  of 
this  may  be  in  no  small  degree  referred  to  the  peculiar 
troubles  of  the  time.  The  clergy  sank  in  estimation,  and 
hence  many  persons  of  a  religious  disposition,  as  well  as 
others,  became  inclined  to  disparage  the  outward  forms  of 
religion.  The  abuse  of  the  sentence  of  interdict,  which 
was  now  often  pronounced  for  reasons  merely  political — a 
sentence  which  involved  multitudes  of  innocent  persons 
in  suffering  for  the  alleged  guilt  of  their  superiors,  and 
which,  by  denying  the  ordinary  means  of  grace,  drove 
the  awakened  cravings  of  the  soul  to  seek  for  sustenance 
elsewhere — contributed  greatly  to  foster  the  mystic  ten¬ 
dency.  And  the  expectation  that  the  end  of  all  things 
would  speedily  come,  the  eager  study  of  such  prophecies 
as  those  of  St.  Hildegard  and  abbot  Joachim,  the  readi¬ 
ness  to  believe  in  visions  and  new  revelations,  affected 
the  mind  in  a  similar  way.b 

Some  of  these  mystics  styled  themselves  “  Friends  of 
God” — a  name  derived  from  the  Saviour’s  words  “  Hence¬ 
forth  I  call  you  not  servants  ;  but  I  have  called  you 
friends.”0  They  abounded  chiefly  on  the  upper  Rhine, 
especially  at  Basel  and  Strasburg ;  but  they  had  also 
correspondence  with  brethren  in  Switzerland,  Italy, 
and  Hungary,  at  Cologne,  and  in  the  Low  Countries. d 
It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  name  designated  an 
organised  society,  connected  with  the  Waldenses  or  other 
sectaries  who  were  avowedly  separated  from  the  church  ; 

Herm.  Corn,  in  Eccard,  ii.  1126 ; 

Hist.  Monast.  S.  Laurent.  Leod.  in 
Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  iv.  1118  ;  Forstem. 


224 ;  cf.  C.  Zantfliet  in  Mart.  Coll. 
Ampl.  v.  301.)  This  dancing  was 
called  after  St.  Vitus,  because,  on  a 
renewal  of  it  at  Strasburg,  in  1418,  the 
affected  persons  were  carried  for  cure 
to  two  chapels  in  the  neighbourhood, 


dedicated  to  that  saint.  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  282  ;  Hecker,  Epidem.  of  Middle 
Ages,  tr.  by  Babington,  ed.  3,  74-84  ; 
Forstem.  235.  b  Neand.  ix.  550. 

c  lb.  551.  (St.  John  xv.  15.) 
d  C.  Schmidt,  ‘  Die  Gottesfreunde 
im  XIV.  Jahrhundert,’  Jena,  1854  ; 
‘Nicolaus  von  Basel,’  Vienna,  1866, 
p.  30. 


Chap.  X.  a.d.  1303-1418.  THE  FRIENDS  OF  GOD. 


429 


but  this  idea  seems  to  be  now  abandoned.  The  “  friends 
of  God  ”  were  not  a  sect,  although  liable  to  be  mistaken 
for  sectaries,  and  involved  by  the  vulgar  in  the  general 
odium  of  beghardism.  The  visions  and  revelations  on 
which  they  relied e  are  foreign  to  the  character  of  the 
Waldensian  system. f  While  judging  the  clergy  freely, 
they  did  not  venture  to  question  the  doctrine  of  the 
church.  They  were  devoted  to  the  blessed  Virgin, g  they 
reverenced  saints  and  relics,  they  held  the  current  belief 
in  purgatory.  Their  love  of  symbolism  enabled  them 
to  reconcile  the  ordinary  faith  and  worship  with  the 
peculiarities  of  their  own  system,  which  they  regarded  as 
additional,  but  not  contradictory,  to  that  of  the  church. h 

In  this  society  were  included  monks  and  clergy,  nobles, 
merchants,  men  and  women  of  all  classes,  even  down 
to  tillers  of  the  soil.1  They  had  priests  to  administer 
the  eucharist,  but  in  other  respects  they  did  not  attach 
importance  to  ordination.*  Thus  Nicolas  of  Basel,  a 
layman,  who  had  founded  the  party,  was  regarded  as  its 
chief,  and  as  its  most  enlightened  member ;  and  one  of 
its  characteristics  was  the  principle  of  submission  to  cer¬ 
tain  men  whose  superior  sanctity  had  raised  them  to  the 
highest  class,  and  invested  them  with  oracular  authority, 
“as  in  God’s  stead.’’1  The  “friends,”  while  professing 
to  be  purely  scriptural,  interpreted  the  Scriptures  allegori¬ 
cally  and  mystically,  and  some  parts  of  their  system  were 


e  C.  Schmidt’s  ‘  Tauler/  165,  168 ; 
Gottesfr.  13-14. 

f  Giesel.II.  iii.  244-5,  251 ;  Milm.  vi. 
374.  This  Dr.  Schmidt  acknowledges 
(Gottesfr.  7),  after  having  maintained 
the  opposite  view  in  his  book  on  Tauler 
(161,  194  5);  and  he  gives  up  the  dis¬ 
tinction  which  he  (Tauler,  27  ;  cf.  Hahn, 
ii.  356)  formerly  drew  between  the 
friends  who  were  in  communion  with 
the  church  and  those  whom  he  supposed 
to  be  sectaries.  See,  too,  his  book  on 
Nicolas  of  Basel,  p.  xo. 


s  See  the  strange  fanciful  account  of 
her  devotions  in  Tauler’s  sermon  on  the 
Purification. 

h  Schmidt,  Tauler,  166  ;  Gottesfr.  8 ; 
Neand.  ix.  554.  See  also  Schmidt’s 
article  Gottesfreunde ,  in  Herzog. 

1  Schmidt,  Tauler,  169. 
k  Id.,  Gottesfr.  15-16;  Nic.  v.  Basel, 
30. 

1  lb.  16-18.  SeeGiesel.  II.  iii.  250; 
Neand.  ix.  560;  Schmidt’s  Tauler, 
196. 


430  THE  FRIENDS  OF  GOD.  Book  VIII. 

concealed  from  the  lower  grades  of  believers  by  being 
disguised  in  a  symbolical  form.™  They  denounced  the 
subtleties  and  the  dryness  of  scholasticism,  and  regarded 
the  mixture  of  philosophy  with  religion  as  pharisaical.11 
Their  preachers  were  distinguished  by  the  warmth,  the 
earnestness,  and  the  practical  nature  of  their  discourses; 
instead  of  contenting  themselves,  as  was  then  common, 
with  warning  against  the  grossest  sins  by  the  fear  of  hell, 
they  rather  dwelt  on  the  blessedness  of  heaven,  and  ex¬ 
horted  to  the  perfection  of  the  Christian  life,  and  to  union 
with  God.0  They  taught  that  these  objects  were  to  be 
sought  by  entire  resignation  to  the  Divine  will ;  if  such 
resignation  were  attained,  men  would  pray  neither  for 
heaven  nor  for  deliverance  from  hell,  but  for  God  Himself 
alone. p  Hence  they  did  not,  like  the  monks,  break  away 
from  their  earthly  ties,  but  regarded  these  as  the  providen¬ 
tial  conditions  under  which  their  work  was  to  be  carried 
on ;  and  although  some  of  them  gave  themselves  to 
contemplation,  the  principle  of  resignation  to  God’s  will 
became  an  incentive  to  action  for  others,  whom  it  taught 
to  regard  themselves  as  instruments  for  the  fulfilment  of 
that  will.9  It  was  held  that  the  highest  reach  of  love  was 
to  prefer  the  salvation  of  another  to  our  own.r 

On  the  same  principle  of  resignation,  it  was  taught  that 
all  temptations  ought  to  be  welcomed ;  even  sensual 
temptations  were  to  be  regarded  as  a  check  on  spiritual 
pride,  and  to  be  without  temptation  was  a  token  of 
being  forsaken  by  God.8  All  bodily  discipline  was  repre¬ 
sented  as  designed  for  spiritual  purposes,  and  as  marking 
a  stage  after  passing  through  which  such  things  would 
not  be  necessary  for  the  believer.  But  sufferings  of 
God’s  sending  were  always  to  be  gladly  accepted.1 

®  Schmidt’s  Gottesfr.  8,  15.  q  lb.  9-11. 

n  14.  f  Tauler,  165.  r  Tauler,  quoted  by  Schmidt,  166. 

0  Neand.  ix.  552.  •  Schmidt,  Gottesfr.  12-13. 

P  Schmidt,  Tauler,  195;  Gottesfr.  9.  1  lb.  11-12;  Neand.  ix.  555,  590-1 


Chap.  X.  a.d.  1308-1393.  NICOLAS  OF  BASEL. 


431 


The  history  of  Nicolas,  the  founder  of  this  remarkable 
society,  is  for  the  most  part  very  obscure.  His  very  name 
is  discoverable  by  inference  only,  and  in  his  accounts  of 
himself  there  is  so  large  a  mixture  of  visionary,  marvel¬ 
lous,  and  allegorical  matter,  that  it  is  impossible  to  de¬ 
termine  how  much  is  intended  to  be  accepted  as  literal 
truth.u  He  was  born  about  1308,  the  son  of  a  merchant,  to 
whose  business  he  succeeded ;  but  the  companionship  of 
a  young  knight  induced  him  to  withdraw  from  trade,  and 
for  a  time  to  engage  in  the  amusements  of  the  world.  On 
the  eve  of  the  day  appointed  for  his  marriage,  he  prayed 
for  direction  before  a  crucifix ;  when  it  seemed  to  him 
that  the  figure  inclined  towards  him,  and,  in  obedience  to 
this  sign,  he  resolved  to  give  up  the  world  and  to  follow 
the  Saviour.x  He  did  not,  however,  renounce  his  wealth, 
but  keeping  it  in  his  own  hands  he  devoted  it  to  religious 
purposes. y  He  appears  to  have  had  at  first  four  associ¬ 
ates,  and  eventually  the  number  of  those  admitted  to  the 
highest2  grade  was  thirteen.21  From  Basel  the  headquar¬ 
ters  of  the  party  were  removed  in  1374-5  to  a  mountain 
within  the  Austrian -Swiss  territory,  where  he  built  a 
house  on  a  site  which  is  said  to  have  been  miraculously 
indicated  by  a  vision,  and  by  the  leading  of  a  dog ; b  and 
thence  Nicolas  kept  up,  by  means  of  correspondence 
and  of  secret  intelligencers,  a  watchful  superintendence 
over  his  widely-spread  connection.  “  The  great  friend  of 
God  in  the  Hill-country,”  as  he  was  styled,  threw  around 
himself  an  air  of  mystery ;  and  when  he  went  forth  to 
work  on  persons  who  had  been  marked  out  as  fit  subjects 
for  his  influence,  he  was  able,  by  means  of  his  private 
information,  to  astonish  and  awe  them  by  a  knowledge  of 

Tauler,  Predigten,  i.  63,  108,  ed.  a  Gottesfr.  18,  and  Append.  176. 
Kuntze,  Berl.  i84i-2(amodernizeded.).  b  Nic.  v.  Basel,  33.  Dr.  Schmidt 
u  Schmidt,  ‘  Nicolaus,’  xii.-xv.  supposes  this  place  to  have  been  Herr- 

x  lb.  3-4.  y  lb.  5.  gottswald  or  Hergiswald,  on  the  slope 

*  Schmidt,  Gottesfr.  18 ;  Nic.  v.  of  Mount  Pilate.  34,  74. 

Basel,  28-30. 


43  2 


ECKART. 


Book  VIII 


their  concerns  which  they  readily  believed  to  be  super¬ 
natural.0  In  1377,  when  the  return  of  Gregory  XI.  from 
Avignon  appeared  to  open  prospects  of  reform,  Nicolas 
and  one  of  his  brethren  repaired  to  Rome,  and  sought 
an  interview  with  the  pope,  whom  they  urged  to  heal 
the  evils  of  the  church.  On  Gregory’s  professing  himself 
unequal  to  such  a  work,  Nicolas  threatened  him  with 
death  within  a  year,  and  foretold  the  coming  schism ; 
and  his  predictions  were,  of  course,  fulfilled.d  At  length 
Nicolas,  after  many  years  of  labour,  was  burnt  as  a 
beghard  at  Vienna,  probably  in  the  year  1393.® 

It  was  from  the  Dominican  brotherhood  that  most  of 
the  great  teachers  of  mysticism  came  forth. f  The  first 
of  them,  Henry  Eckart,  became  provincial  of  the  order 
for  Saxony  in  1304,  and  lived  at  Cologne. g  With  Eckart, 
the  great  object  of  endeavour  is  represented  to  be  the 
union  and  identification  of  the  soul  with  God,  whom  he 
speaks  of  as  the  only  being.  By  contemplation,  he  says, 
the  divine  part  of  the  soul  may  become  one  with  God, 
and  son  to  Him ;  the  soul  is  transformed  into  God  even 
as  the  eucharistic  bread  and  wine  are  changed  into  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Saviour.11  The  word  which  Eckart 
used  to  denote  the  desire  of  this  union  was  poverty,  by 
which  was  expressed  the  fact  that  man  has  nothing  of 
his  own;1  in  order  to  attain  to  the  pure  knowledge  of 


c  Nic.  v.  Basel,  13,  30,  32. 
d  Gottesfr.  21-3,  178  ;  Nic.  v.  Basel, 
39-4 1 .  Gregory  is  reported  to  have  said, 
“  If  you  could  give'he  emperor  as  good 
counsels  as  you  have  given  me,  it  would 
be  of  great  benefit  to  Christendom.” 

e  Giesel.  II.  iii.  198 ;  Schmidt’s 
Tauler,  198-205 — on  the  authority  of 
John  Nieder,  prior  of  the  Dominicans 
at  Basel,  about  1430,  and  author  of  a 
book  entitled  ‘  Formicarius.’  The 
printed  copies  read  ‘  Wiennse  in  Picta- 
viensi,’  but  no  such  place  is  known  in 
the  region  of  Poitiers ;  and  the  true 


reading  is  ascertained  from  a  MS.  to 
be  Pataviensi.  Ullmann,  ii.  22-9  ; 
Schmidt,  Nic.  v.  Basel,  50. 

f  Pfeiffer,  ‘Die  DeutschenMystiker,’ 
Einleit.  9. 

B  Martensen,  ‘ Meister  Eckart,’ 
Hamburg.  1832  ;  Ritter,  viii.  498-515; 
Bach,  *  Meister  Eckhart,  der  Vaterder 
deutschen  Speculation,'  Wien,  1864, 
p.  51.  His  writings  are  in  vol.  ii.  of 
Pfeiffer's  ‘  Deutsche  Mystiker.’ 

h  Giesel.  II.  iii.  245-6;  Neand.  ix. 
571  ;  Martensen,  9;  Bach,  53. 

1  So  Tauler’s  ‘Nachfolgung  des 


Chap.  X. 


ECKART. 


433 


God,  all  joy  and  fear,  all  confidence  and  hope,  must 
be  laid  aside  j  for  all  these  are  of  the  creature,  and  are 

Eckart’s  mysticism  was  largely 


hindrances  to  union.k 


indebted  to  the  works  of  the  pretended  Dionysius  the 
Areopagite,  and  had  much  in  common  with  Neoplatonism.1 
His  language  often  runs  into  manifest  pantheism  ;m 
but,  although  in  this  respect  he  bears  a  likeness  to 
the  sectaries  of  the  Free  Spirit,  he  was  in  no  way  con¬ 
nected  with  them,  but  differed  essentially  from  them  in 
his  ardent  desire  for  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  and  in  his 
freedom  from  the  impurity  which  stained  their  teaching.11 
There  was,  however  enough  to  draw  on  him  the  sus¬ 
picion  of  heterodoxy ;  and,  after  a  previous  examination 
by  the  authorities  of  his  order  in  1324,  the  matter 
was  taken  up  by  the  archbishop  of  Cologne,  who  in 
1327  censured  twenty-eight  propositions  extracted  from 
his  writings.0  These  Eckart  retracted  in  so  far  as  they 
might  be  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church ;  but  a 
more  special  retractation  was  required,  and  against  this 
demand  he  appealed  to  the  pope.?  By  this  step  he 
appears  to  have  secured  himself  from  further  trouble, 
until. his  death  in  1329  ;q  but  in  that  same  year  he  was 
condemned  by  John  XXII.,  as  having  held  twenty-eight 
erroneous  propositions.1-  It  would  seem,  however,  that 
the  Dominicans  exerted  themselves  in  favour  of  his 
memory ;  for  although  the  pope,  in  the  following  year, 
by  the  bull  ‘  In  agro  DominicoJ  renewed  his  censure  of 
the  propositions,  it  may  be  supposed  that  by  omitting  to 
connect  the  name  of  Eckart  with  them,  he  intended  (in 


armen  Lebens  Christi  ’  is  founded  on 
the  idea  of  poverty. 
k  Martens.  37. 

1  Giesel.  II.  iii.  I245. 
m  See  passages  quoted  by  Neand.  ix. 
569 ;  Ullmann,  ii.  22-9 ;  and  Giesel. 
II.  iii.  246. 

n  lb.  245-8 ;  Neand.  ix.  572-9 ; 
Martens.  37  ;  Bach,  57.  Gieseler  (p. 

VOL.  VII. 


249)  supposes  that  the  sectaries  of  the 
Free  Spirit  took  advantage  of  Eckart’s 
fame  to  pass  off  in  his  name  a  book 
‘Of  the  Nine  Rocks’  different  frona 
that  of  Rulman  Merswin  which  is 
mentioned  below. 

0  Giesel.  II.  iii.  247 ;  Martensen,  12  ; 
Bach,  56.  p  lb.  56. 

lb.  57.  r  Rayn.  1329.  70-2. 

28 


434 


TAULER. 


Book  VIII. 


so  far  as  retractation  was  possible  for  a  pope)  to  with¬ 
draw  the  charge  against  him.s 

Notwithstanding  the  suspicions  which  had  been  cast 
on  Eckart’s  orthodoxy,  his  writings  continued  to  be  the 
chief  study  of  the  later  mystics,  among  whom  John 
Tauler  was  the  most  famous.1  Tauler  was  born  at 
Strasburg  in  1294,  and  at  the  age  of  eighteen  entered  the 
Dominican  order.  He  studied  for  some  time  at  Paris, 
although  it  is  not  known  whether  it  was  to  that  univer¬ 
sity  that  he  owed  his  degree  of  doctor  in  theology ;  and 
in  the  course  of  his  studies  he  showed  a  preference  for 
the  mystical  and  spiritual  writers — the  pseudo- Dionysius, 
the  school  of  St.  Bernard,  and,  above  all,  St.  Augus¬ 
tine — over  the  scholastic  authors  who  were  then  of 
greatest  authority.11  On  returning  to  his  native  city  he 
fell  under  the  influence  of  Eckart  and  other  mystics, 
which  was  then  powerful  at  Strasburg;  yet,  unlike 
Eckart,  he  was  inclined  rather  to  practical  work  than 
to  speculation, x  and  he  often  denounces  the  mistaken 
contemplativeness  and  the  passive  quietism  which  he 
regarded  as  perversions  of  the  true  mysticism  ;  for  in 
this  he  held  that  love  for  man  ought  to  go  hand-in-hand 
with  the  aspiration  after  union  with  God.y 

Strasburg  was  then  agitated  by  the  differences  between 
the  pope  and  the  emperor  Lewis,  so  that,  while  the 
bishop  adhered  to  the  pope,  the  citizens,  by  siding  with 
the  emperor,  incurred  the  sentence  of  interdict.2  In 
consequence  of  this,  the  clergy  were  divided :  while 
some  shut  up  their  churches,  others,  in  defiance  of  the 
interdict,  deemed  it  their  duty  to  continue  their  pastoral 


8  Giesel.  Il.iii.  249.  Bach  disagrees 
with  this  inference.  57. 

1  See  C.  Schmidt’s  ‘Jo.  Tauler  von 
Strassburg,’  Hainb.  1841,  with  the  same 
writer's  article  Tauler,  in  Herzog’s 
Encyclopredia,  and  the  Life  prefixed 
to  a  translation  of  some  of  Tauler’s 


sermons  by  Miss  Winkworth,  Lond. 
1857.  Tauler  styles  Eckart  “der 
beruhmte  Lehrer  Eccardus.”  Predig- 
ten,  i.  63.  u  Schmidt,  2. 

x  lb.  3-6. 

y  E.g.,  Predigten,  i.  75,  241-2. 

*  Schmidt,  8-14. 


Chap.  X.  a.d.  1294-1346. 


TAULER. 


435 


labours.  In  such  circumstances  it  was  natural  that  per¬ 
sons  of  all  classes  should  be  drawn  together  by  the  desire 
of  finding  some  satisfaction  for  their  spiritual  needs,  to 
which  the  church  appeared  to  deny  the  means  of  sup¬ 
port  ;  and  thus  the  association  of  the  “  friends  of  God  ” 
became  greatly  increased  in  numbers.3.  Among  the 
clergy  who  remained  at  their  posts  was  Tauler,  although 
the  brethren  of  his  order  in  general  left  the  town.  The 
circumstances  of  the  time  gave  him  prominence ;  he 
became  famous  as  a  preacher,  and  in  that  character  he 
extended  his  labours  on  the  one  side  to  Basel  (where,  as 
at  Strasburg,  the  imperialist  citizens  had  been  laid  under 
an  interdict  by  the  bishop),  and  on  the  other  side  to 
Cologne  ;  the  fame  of  his  eloquence  even  made  its  way 
across  the  Alps  into  Italy .b 

In  1346°  he  was  visited  by  a  layman,  who  had  listened 
to  several  of  his  sermons  and  expressed  a  wish  to  confess 
to  him.  Tauler  heard  the  confession,  and  administered 
the  sacrament  of  the  altar  to  the  stranger,  who  afterwards 
visited  him  again,  and  requested  him  to  preach  on  the 
manner  of  attaining  the  highest  perfection  which  is  pos¬ 
sible  in  this  life.  Tauler  complied,  although  reluctantly, 
and  addressed  to  a  crowded  audience  an  earnest  exhor¬ 
tation  to  renunciation  of  self  and  of  self-will.  Once 
more  the  layman,  who  had  taken  notes  of  the  sermon, 
appeared,  and  told  Tauler  that  he  had  come  a  distance 
of  thirty  miles,  not  so  much  to  hear  him  as  to  give  him 
advice ;  that  he,  the  famous  preacher,  who  had  already 
reached  his  fiftieth  year,  was  still  but  a  man  of  books, 
a  mere  Pharisee.  Tauler,  although  startled  and  shocked 
by  such  words,  warmly  thanked  his  monitor  for  having 
been  the  first  to  tell  him  of  his  faults,  and  entreated  his 
further  counsel.  The  stranger  prescribed  some  ascetic 


3  Schmidt,  14-16  ;  Milman,  vi.  373. 
b  Schmidt,  16-17. 


c  See  as  to  the  date,  Schmidt,  ‘Nic, 
v.  Basel,’  72. 


436  TAULER.  Book  VIII 

exercises  ;  he  himself,  he  said,  had  gone  through  such 
things,  but  had  now  outgrown  them,  so  as  to  need  them 
no  longer;  and  he  further  charged  Tauler  to  abstain  for 
two  years  from  preaching,  from  hearing  confessions,  and 
from  study,  shutting  himself  up  in  the  seclusion  of  his 
cell.  Submission  to  the  dictates  of  those  who  were 
supposed  to  possess  spiritual  experience  was,  as  we  have 
seen,  a  characteristic  of  the  ‘‘friends  of  God,”  and  Tauler 
obeyed.  The  monitor  was  no  other  than  Nicolas  of 
Basel,  who,  in  his  watchful  observation  of  all  who  might 
be  supposed  likely  to  sympathize  with  him,  had  marked 
Tauler  during  a  visit  which  the  preacher  had  lately  made 
to  Basel, d  and  had  undertaken  the  journey  to  Strasburg 
for  the  purpose  of  gaining  him.®  Tauler  struggled 
through  the  prescribed  exercises,  being  upheld  by  the 
counsels  of  Nicolas,  and  even  assisted  by  his  money, 
while  his  former  friends  mocked  at  him  for  the  change 
which  had  taken  place  ;  but  when,  at  the  end  of  the  two 
years,  he  attempted  to  resume  his  preaching,  and  his 
fame  had  drawn  together  a  great  audience,  his  utterance 
was  choked  by  his  feelings  ;  he  burst  into  tears,  and 
found  himself  unable  to  proceed.  It  was  supposed  that 
he  had  lost  his  senses,  and  his  superiors  forbade  him  the 
pulpit.  Nicolas  of  Basel,  on  being  consulted,  told  him 
that  perhaps  he  had  not  yet  overcome  his  love  of  self, 
and  advised  him  to  remain  silent  for  some  time  longer ; 
after  which,  by  the  direction  of  Nicolas,  Tauler  asked  and 
obtained  leave  to  preach  in  Latin  before  the  brethren 
of  his  order.  In  this  he  acquitted  himself  so  as  to  raise 
general  admiration,  and  the  late  prohibition  was  taken  off. 
He  resumed  his  public  preaching,  which  was  now  marked 

d  Schmidt  places  this  visit  in  1338.  the  time  (Schmidt,  26-7).  The  truth 
Herzog,  xv.  485.  of  the  story  has  been  questioned,  as 

e  Nicolas  is  not  named,  but  there  is  by  Quetif  and  Echard,  who  think  it 
enough  to  show  that  he  is  meant.  partly  symbolical,  i.  677. 

Tauler  noted  down  the  conversation  at 


Chap.  X.  a.d.  1346-8. 


TAULER. 


437 


by  a  warmth  and  a  depth  unknown  in  his  earlier  time  : 
such  was  the  effect  of  his  first  sermon  that  twelve  persons 
were  struck  down  as  if  dead/  He  strenuously  urged 
reformation,  nor  did  he  spare  the  faults  of  the  clergy, 
so  that  with  them  he  became  unpopular,  and  he  and  his 
associates  were  stigmatized  as  beghards.s  In  addition  to 
labouring  as  a  preacher,  Tauler  wrote  some  German  tracts, 
of  which  the  most  celebrated  is  one  on  ‘  The  Imitation 
of  the  Saviour’s  Life  of  Poverty  * ;  and  he  acted  as  the 
spiritual  director  of  many  persons — among  whom  Rulman 
Merswin,  a  wealthy  retired  merchant,  and  author  of  a 
book  entitled  ‘The  Nine  Rocks/  is  especially  mentioned/ 
The  great  pestilence  of  134S  raged  with  such  violence 
at  Strasburg  that  16,000  persons  died  in  the  city  alone/ 
The  interdict  was  still  in  force,  and  the  clergy  in  general, 
professedly  out  of  obedience  to  it,  refrained  from  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  their  ministry.  In  these  circumstances,  Tauler 
and  a  few  others,  among  whom  was  Ludolf  of  Saxony, 
prior  of  the  Carthusian  convent/  stepped  forward,  argu¬ 
ing  that  it  was  contrary  to  Scripture  and  to  reason  that, 
for  the  political  offence  of  one  man,  multitudes  of  inno¬ 
cent  persons  should  be  excluded  from  the  means  of 


f  Schmidt,  36.  s  lb.  41-3. 
h  See  Schmidt,  177,  seqq. ;  and  Miss 
Winkworth,  144.  Merswin  was  also 
under  the  direction  of  Nicolas  of  Basel 
(Giesel.  II.  iii.  253 ;  Schmidt,  ‘  Tauler,’ 
179,  202  ;  Nic.  v.  Basel,  24).  Hisbookof 
‘The  Nine  Rocks’  was  written  in  1352 
(Schmidt,  47)  and  is  printed  with  Suso’s 
works.  He  complains  (cc.  5-14)  of 
degeneracy,  luxury,  and  contempt  of 
spiritual  things,  as  prevailing  among 
all  classes  of  the  clergy  from  the  pope 
downwards— among  monks  and  friars, 
beghards  and  laity.  The  nine  rocks, 
each  of  which,  as  it  rises  higher,  is 
steeper  and  harder  to  climb,  are  peo¬ 
pled  by  persons  who  have  overcome 
some  sins,  but  not  all.  The  number 
on  each  successive  rock  is  less  than 


on  that  immediately  below  it ;  on  the 
last  of  them,  only  three  men  appear, 
and  these  seem  as  if  wasted  by  their 
toil,  although  inwardly  shining  like 
angels  from  the  love  that  is  in  them. 

1  Schmidt,  45. 

k  For  Ludolf,  see  Quetif-Echard, 
i.  568.  He  had ’left  the  Dominicans 
for  the  Carthusians,  in  order  that  he 
might  give  himself  to  contemplation. 
He  is  known  as  the  author  of  a  ‘  Life 
of  Christ,’  from  which  it  has  been  sup¬ 
posed  that  Jeremy  Taylor  may  have 
borrowed  “the  outline  and  first  concep¬ 
tion  of  his  own  book  ”  on  the  subject. 
See  Bp.  Heber,  in  Eden’s  edition,  i. 
cxxxii.  Ludolf’s  book  has  lately  been 
reprinted  at  Paris, 


43  8 


TAULER. 


Book  VIII. 


grace  and  from  the  benefit  of  the  Redeemer’s  sufferings.1 
They  tended  the  sick,  aided  them  with  spiritual  counsel, 
administered  the  last  consolations  of  religion,  and  buried 
the  dead  with  the  offices  of  the  church.  But  by  these 
and  other  things  the  bishop  of  Strasburg  was  offended, 
so  that  when  Charles  IV.  visited  the  city,  and  recon¬ 
ciliation  with  the  church  was  offered  to  the  inhabitants, 
Tauler  was  required,  as  a  suspected  beghard,  to  give  an 
account  of  his  faith  before  the  emperor.m  The  result 
is  not  recorded ;  but  it  was  probably  in  consequence  of 
this  that  he  withdrew  to  Cologne,  where  he  laboured 
zealously  to  correct  the  prevailing  habits  of  luxury,  and 
to  counteract  the  teaching  of  the  professors  of  the  Free 
Spirit.11  The  time  of  his  return  to  Strasburg  is  unknown ; 
but  he  was  there  in  1361,  when,  feeling  the  approach  of 
death,  he  invited  Nicolas  of  Basel  to  visit  him.  In 
compliance  with  this  request,  Nicolas  repaired  to  Stras¬ 
burg,  and  during  an  illness  of  many  weeks  Tauler  was 
sustained  by  the  comfort  of  intercourse  with  the  man 
whose  influence  had  determined  the  course  of  his 
maturer  spiritual  life,  and  whom  he  now  desired  to  draw 
up  a  narrative  of  their  early  intercourse,  from  notes 
which  Tauler  had  made  long  before.  Tauler  died  on 
the  16th  of  June  1361,  in  a  garden-house  of  the  convent 
in  which  his  sister  was  a  nun  ;  and  he  has  been  blamed 
by  a  severe  mystic  for  the  weakness  of  indulging  his 
human  affections  by  allowing  himself  her  society.0 

Tauler  was  styled  by  his  admirers  the  Illuminated  (or 
Enlightened)  Doctor.  His  sermons,  which  are  the  most 
important  part  of  his  remaining  works,  are  characterized 
by  deep  earnestness  and  by  an  evangelical  tone  which, 

1  Schmidt,  51-3.  tory  for  six  kinds  of  sins — among  them, 

m  lb.  56.  that  he  had  “sought  too  much  support 

n  lb.  59-60.  for  his  nature  from  his  sister.”  (Id.  in 

0  See  Schmidt,  62.  In  a  fragment  of  Herz.  xv.  487.)  Dean  Milman  charac- 
a  lost  book  by  an  unknown  author,  it  is  terizes  him  as  social,  not  eremitical, 
said  that  Tauler  had  to  suffer  in  purga  vi.  378. 


Chap.  X.  a.d.  1448-61. 


HIS  WRITINGS. 


439 


as  Luther  mentions,  was  symbolized  by  his  monument, 
on  which  he  was  represented  as  pointing  to  the  Lamb  of 
God.P  He  taught  that  outward  austerities  were  to  be 
regarded  not  for  their  own  sake,  but  as  a  discipline  for 
beginners,  and  would  fall  away  of  themselves  from  the 
believer  in  proportion  as  his  faith  became  matured ;  that 
without  a  right  heart,  penance,  confession,  absolution, 
with  all  the  intercessions  of  the  blessed  Virgin  and  the 
saints,  are  of  no  avail.  While  he  would  have  all  the  laws 
of  the  church  observed,  he  attaches  no  importance  to 
the  outward  works,  and  even  says  that  the  believer  must 
sometimes  appear  to  break  the  laws — a  principle  which 
was,  of  course,  liable  to  be  perverted,  as  it  was  by  the 
sectaries  of  the  Free  Spirit.  And,  while  he  regards  the 
holy  eucharist  as  the  chief  means  of  union  between  the 
believer  and  his  Lord,  he  teaches  that  in  this  also  the 
inward  feeling  must  be  regarded  rather  than  the  outward 
form.q  Although  fond  of  recondite  meanings,  he  is 
free  from  all  parade  of  learning;  in  one  sermon,  he  an¬ 
nounces  his  intention  of  giving  up  the  practice  of  using 
Latin  quotations,  except  in  discourses  addressed  to 
learned  hearers/  The  writings  of  Tauler  had  much 
influence  on  the  mind  of  Luther,  who  warmly  expressed 
his  obligations  to  them.s  It  has  been  said  by  Herder, 
that  to  read  two  of  Tauler’s  sermons  is  to  read  them  all; 1 
yet,  as  has  been  well  observed,  even  the  monotony  which 


p  See  the  Preface  to  the  Sermons. 
The  monument,  erected  in  the  church 
of  his  order  (which  was  afterwards 
made  over  to  the  protestants,  and  was 
known  as  the  “  Temple neuf  ”),  survived 
the  destruction  of  that  church  in  the 
siege  of  1870.  *  Times,’  Oct.  8,  1870. 

<1  Schmidt,  149-53. 

1  Predigten,  i.  150. 

9  “  Ich  weiss  zwar  dass  dieser  Lehrer 
in  denen  Scbulen  derer  Theologornm 
unbekandt,  und  deswegen  vielleicht 


verachtlich  ist,  aber  ich  habe  darinne 
[in  seinen  deutschen  Reden]  mehr  von 
griindlicher  und  lauterer  Theologie 
gefunden,  als  man  in  alien  Schul- 
Lehrern  zusammen,  die  auf  alien  Uni- 
versitiiten  gelehret  haben,  gefunden 
hat,  oder  in  ihren  Sententiis  finden 
kan.”  Bestreitungdespapstl.  Ablasses. 
Werke,  xvii.  52,  ed.  Leipz.  1732. 

1  Werke  zur  Relig.  u.  Theologie 
xiv.  181,  ed.  Stuttg.  1827-30. 


440 


suso. 


Book  VII L 


unquestionably  runs  throughout  them  may  have  tended 
in  practice  to  deepen  the  impression  of  his  teaching.11 

Another  famous  mystic,  Henry  von  Berg,  who  is  more 
generally  known  by  the  name  of  Suso,x  was  a  Dominican 
of  Constance,  and  died  in  1365,  in  his  seventieth  year.7 
In  an  autobiography,  which  is  probably  in  part  imaginary, 
he  tells  us  that  from  the  age  of  eighteen  to  that  of  forty 
he  disciplined  himself  by  strict  observances  of  devotion, 
by  severe  ascetic  exercises,  and  even  by  tortures,  such  as 
that  of  wearing  under  his  dress  a  wooden  cross  studded 
with  thirty  nails,  of  which  the  points  were  turned  towards 
his  flesh.2  At  length,  when  he  had  reduced  himself  by 
this  treatment  to  such  a  degree  that  a  continuance  of  it 
must  have  been  fatal,  he  was  told  by  an  angel  that  he 
had  studied  long  enough  in  the  lower  school,  and  was 
to  be  transferred  to  the  higher,  in  which  his  sufferings 
would  not  be  of  his  own  infliction,  but  would  come  on 
him  plentifully  from  men  and  devils.a  The  object  of 
all  he  represents  as  being  an  entire  abandonment  and 
resignation  of  self  to  the  Divine  will,  in  imitation  of 
the  Saviour’s  example.13  On  expressing  a  wish  to  set  to 
work,  he  is  told  that  the  less  one  does,  the  more  hath  he 
really  done — that  men  ought  not  to  act  for  themselves, 
but  to  cast  themselves  wholly  on  God’s  promises.  There 
are  stories  not  only  of  visions,  but  of  miracles.0  The 
book  was  drawn  up  by  Suso  for  the  instruction  of  a 
“spiritual  daughter,”  whom  he  warns  that  she  is  soon 
to  die ;  and  he  relates  that,  after  her  death,  he  had  a 
vision  of  her  as  “  passing  gloriously  into  the  pure  Di- 


u  See  Milman,  vi.  378. 
x  This  was  formed  from  his  mother’s 
name,  Seuss  or  Sauss,  with  an  allusion 
to  suss  (sweet).  It  is  said  that  the 
blessed  Virgin  changed  his  name  to 
Amandus,  but  that  out  of  humility  he 
declined  the  use  of  this.  Acta  SS.,  Jan. 
25  ;  Suso’s  Werke,  ed.  Diepenbroeck, 


ed.  2,  Ratisbon,  1837,  pp.  xvii.-xviii. ; 
cf.  Quetif-Echard,  i.  653 ;  Ullmann, 
ii.  187-203. 

y  Diepenbr.  xix.  Schmidt,  in  Her¬ 
zog,  art.  Suso,  makes  him  five  years 
older.  z  Cc.  12-18. 
a  Cc.  20-2.  b  C.  21. 

c  Cc.  44-8. 


Chap.  X. 


THE  GERMAN  THEOLOGY — RUYSBROEK. 


44I 


vinity.”d  The  principle  of  self-abandonment  is  again  in¬ 
culcated  in  Suso’s  book  ‘  Of  the  Eternal  Wisdom/  where 
the  Saviour  is  introduced  as  conversing  with  His  servant, 
and  recounting  the  bodily  and  spiritual  sufferings  of  His 
passion.  Suso  is  without  the  manly  strength  of  Tauler, 
and  is  distinguished  chiefly  by  the  poetical  and  figurative 
tone  of  his  writings.6 

The  mystically  speculative  tendency  of  Eckart  revived 
in  the  anonymous  author  of  the  ‘  German  Theology/ 
which  is  supposed  to  be  a  work  of  this  time/  and  in  John 
Ruysbroek,  who  was  distinguished  by  the  title  of  Ecstatic 
Doctor.  Ruysbroek,  who  is  characterized  by  John  of 
Trittenheimg  as  “a  man  reputed  to  be  devout,  but  of 
little  learning,”  had  been  a  secular  priest  at  Brussels 
until  the  age  of  sixty,  when  he  withdrew  to  the  monastery 
of  GrontaJ,  of  which  he  became  prior.  He  professed 
that  he  never  wrote  a  word  except  by  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  in  the  especial  presence  of  the  Divine 
Trinity ; h  and  it  is  related  that,  when  he  found  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  divine  grace  strong  on  him,  he  used  to  retire 
to  write  in  the  depths  of  a  wood — where  his  canons, 
uneasy  at  his  long  absence,  once  found  him  surrounded 
by  a  supernatural  light,  imperfectly  conscious,  but  “  inebri¬ 
ated  by  the  glow  of  the  divine  sweetness.” 1  Ruysbroek 
died  in  1381,  at  the  age  of  eighty-eight.  His  works  were 
written  in  Flemish,  but  were  translated  into  Latin.  Ger- 


d  “  Wie  adelig  sie  in  die  blosse  Gott- 
heit  vergangen  ware.”  P.  172. 

e  Giesel.  II.  iii.  255  ;  Schmidt,  in 
Herzog,  art.  Suso. 

f  Luther,  who  first  edited  it,  and  gave 
it  the  name  by  which  it  is  known,  as¬ 
cribed  it  to  “  a  member  of  the  Teutonic 
order  (ein  deutscher  Herr),  a  priest  and 
warden  in  the  house  of  the  Teutonic 
order  at  Frankfort.”  Others  call  him 
Eblendus  or  Eblandus  ;  and  some 
wrongly  attribute  the  book  to  Tauler. 


But  nothing  is  really  known  as  to  the 
writer.  See  Gieseler,  II,  iii.  256 ;  Alzog, 
ii.  209-10.  He  belonged  to  the  society 
of  Friends  of  God.  (Herzog,  xv.  745.) 
Dean  Milman  observes  that  the  book  is 
remarkable  not  only  for  what  it  retains, 
but  for  what  it  omits  as  being  no  real 
part  of  Christian  faith,  vi.  380. 

8  De  Scriptoribus  Eccl.  p.  332.  Cf. 
Ullm.  ii.  36,  seqq. 
h  Giesel.  II.  iii.  257. 

5  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  274-6. 


442 


GERSON — THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST.  Book  VIII. 


son,  who,  as  a  nominalist,  was  alarmed  by  their  mystic 
realism,  denounced  them  as  pantheistic, k  and  on  this 
account  became  involved  in  a  controversy  with  John 
of  Schonhofen,  a  canon  of  Grontal,  who,  among  other 
things,  charged  him  with  having  too  much  relied  on  the 
Latin  translation.1 

Gerson  himself  endeavoured  to  unite  mysticism  with 
scholasticism,  so  as  to  exclude  the  dangers  of  unre¬ 
strained  imagination  and  fanaticism  ; m  and  to  him  has 
been  attributed  by  some  writers  the  authorship  of  the 
most  celebrated  devotional  book  of  the  middle  ages — 
the  treatise  ‘  Of  the  Imitation  of  Christ.’  But  this 
supposition  appears  rather  to  have  been  suggested  by 
the  patriotic  desire  of  French  writers  to  claim  for  one 
of  their  own  countrymen  a  work  so  justly  admired  than 
to  rest  on  any  solid  basis  of  facts.  And  the  slightly 
different  name  of  John  Gersm,  which  has  been  put 
forward  by  other  writers  on  the  ground  of  inscriptions 
in  some  manuscript  copies  of  the  book,  would  seem  to 
be  really  nothing  more  than  a  mistake  for  that  of  the 
famous  chancellor  of  Paris.  The  popular  opinion,  which 
ascribes  the  ‘  Imitation  ’  to  Thomas  Hamerken  of 
Ivempten,  a  canon  regular  of  Zwoll,  who  died  in  1471, 
appears,  therefore,  to  be  the  most  probable.11  The  tone 
of  the  ‘  Imitation  ’  is  strongly  mystical,  yet  no  less 
practical — setting  forth  religious  practice  as  the  way  to 


k  Opera,  i.  59;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  259; 
Schwab,  358.  He  styles  Ruysbroek  a 
beghard,  but  incorrectly,  according  to 
Mosheim,  De  Begh.  et  Beguin.  309. 

1  The  tract  is  in  Gerson’s  Works,  i. 
63-78,  and  is  followed  by  Gerson’s  re¬ 
joinder.  See  D’Argentrd,  I.  ii.  152  ; 
Mosh.  de  Begh.  31 1  ;  Ullm.  ii.  47-8; 
Schwab,  359,  seqq.  Ruysbroek,  al¬ 
though  some  of  his  language  gave 
countenance  to  the  idea  of  his  being  a 
pantheist,  was  really  not  such,  but  ex¬ 
pressed  a  wish  to  see  pantheists  burnt. 


Schwab,  361. 

m  Schrockh,  xxiv.  290 ;  C.  Schmidt, 
in  Herzog,  v.  91  ;  Ritter,  vi.  637. 
Schwab  fully  discusses  his  mysticism, 
c.  vii. 

n  For  a  view  of  the  controversy  as 
to  the  authorship,  see  Schrockh,  xxxiv. 
312  ;  Giesel.  II.  iv.  347  ;  C.  Schmidt, 
in  Herzog,  art.  Thomas  a  Kempis ; 
Schwab,  782  ;  Hallam,  H.  L.,  i.  167-9. 
Some  writers  suppose  the  last  book  of 
the  '  Imitation  ’  to  be  by  a  different 
hand  from  the  preceding  three. 


Chap.  X. 


MYSTICISM. 


443 


insight  into  divine  things.  Thoroughly  monastic  in 
spirit,  it  has  the  characteristic  excellences  and  defects  of 
monastic  piety ;  while  it  is  full  of  wise  guidance  for  the 
soul  in  the  ways  of  humility,  purity,  and  self-renunciation, 
the  religion  which  it  inculcates  is  too  exclusively  directed 
towards  the  perfecting  of  the  individual  in  himself,  too 
little  solicitous  for  his  relations  with  the  brotherhood 
of  mankind.  Its  conception  of  the  way  of  life  is  too 
limited,  and  does  not  enough  regard  the  endless  variety 
of  circumstances  in  which  men  are  placed,  with  the  task 
before  them  of  working  out  their  salvation  under  the 
conditions  assigned  to  them  by  the  divine  providence. 
Yet  the  vast  and  unequalled  popularity  of  the  book  has 
not  been  confined  to  those  who  would  sympathize  with 
its  monastic  peculiarities,  but  has  extended  to  multitudes 
of  persons  remote  in  feeling  and  in  belief  from  all  that 
is  specially  distinctive  of  medieval  religion. 

The  teaching  of  the  mystics,  by  leading  men  from  a 
reliance  on  outward  observances  to  an  inward  spiritual 
life,  prepared  the  way  for  the  Reformation,  and  Luther 
speaks  with  warm  admiration  of  Tauler  and  of  the 
German  Theology.  But  between  the  two  systems  there 
was  the  important  difference,  that  whereas  the  mystics 
sought  after  immediate  union  with  the  Saviour  through 
conformity  to  him  in  humility  and  spiritual  poverty,  the 
characteristic  doctrine  of  Luther  was  that  of  free  justifi¬ 
cation  by  faith,  while  his  system  insisted  on  the  necessity 
of  those  sacramental  means  which  the  mystics  regarded 
as  comparatively  unimportant.0 

0  Martensen,  113-15. 


444 


Book  VIII. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


SUPPLEMENTARY. 


I. — The  Hierarchy. 


(i.)  In  the  earlier  part  of  the  time  which  we  are  now 
surveying,  the  pretensions  of  the  papacy,  although  they 
could  not  in  substance  be  carried  higher  than  before 
(inasmuch  as  they  already  included  supremacy  both  in 
spiritual  and  in  temporal  things),  were  more  extravagantly 
developed  in  detail.  For  this  questionable  service  the 
popes  were  indebted  to  the  flattery  of  curialist  writers, 
and  of  friars  specially  devoted  to  their  interest,  such  as 
Augustine  Trionfi  and  Alvar  Pelayo,a — who  maintained, 
for  example,  that  the  pope  could  not  sin  by  corruption 
or  simony  in  the  bestowal  of  prcfe  ment,  forasmuch  as  he 
is  above  law,  so  that  actions  which  are  sinful  in  others 
are  not  so  in  him.b 

In  their  relations  with  secular  powers  the  popes  were 
often  gainers.  The  claim  advanced  by  John  XXII.  in 
the  case  of  Lewis  of  Bavaria — that  an  elected  emperor 
should  not  have  authority  to  govern  until  after  having 
been  examined  and  approved  by  the  pope — was  some¬ 
thing  even  beyond  the  pretensions  of  Boniface  VIII.  ;c 


a  See  p.  107  ;  Gerson  de  Potestate 
Eccl.,  Opera,  ii.  246.  The  charge 
which  has  sometimes  been  brought 
against  the  Roman  church,  of  styling 
the  pope  “  Dominus  Deus  noster,” 
appears  to  have  grown  out  of  the  fact 
that  he  is  so  styled  in  the  early  printed 
editions  of  a  gloss  on  Extrav.  Joh. 
XXII.  tit.  xiv.  c.  4  (p.  153),  by  Zenze- 
linus,  a. d.  1325.  But  it  seems  doubt¬ 
ful  whether  even  in  this  single  passage 
the  word  Deum  was  not  inserted  by  a 


mistake  of  the  early  printers  ;  and  it 
has  been  left  out  in  all  editions  since 
1612,  so  that  the  Roman  Church  is 
nowise  answerable  for  the  phrase  See 
Gieseler,  II.  iii.  106  ;  Letters  by  Dr. 
Maitland  and  others,  in  British  Mag. 
xiii.  -xiv. 

b  See  extracts  in  Gieseler,  II.  iii. 
101-5,  123-4.  On  the  other  side,  the 
‘  Aureum  Speculum  Papse’  (as  to  which 
see  ib.  149)  in  Fascic.  Rer.  Exp.  et  Fug. 
ii.  80,  seqq.  c  Schmidt,  iii.  525. 


Chap.  XI.  a. d.  1303-1418. 


THE  PAPACY. 


445 


but  in  the  contest  with  Lewis  the  popes  had  the  advan¬ 
tage,  and  their  candidate,  Charles  IV.,  succeeded  peace¬ 
fully  on  his  rival’s  death.  The  right  to  bestow  kingdom^ 
had  been  already  asserted  as  to  Hungary  on 

0  J  A.D.  I2QO. 

the  extinction  of  the  Arpad  dynasty,  although 
the  Hungarians  would  not  allow  that  the  pope  was  en¬ 
titled  to  do  more  than  to  confirm  the  national  choice  ;d 
and  in  other  cases,  princes  who  were  desirous  to  secure 
themselves  in  the  possession  of  a  doubtful  crown  requested 
the  papal  sanction,  as  was  done  by  the  great  Robert  of 
Scotland  shortly  before  his  death.e 

But  on  the  whole  the  popes  lost  more  than  they  gained. 
Their  claims  to  domination,  after  having  been  carried 
beyond  endurance  by  Boniface  VIII.,  began  immediately 
afterwards  to  recede  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  bulls  which 
had  offended  Philip  the  Fair ; f  and  that  line  of  investiga¬ 
tion  into  the  sources  of  the  papal  rights  which  was  begun 
in  the  imperial  interest  by  such  writers  as  Marsilius  of 
Padua  and  William  of  Ockham,  was  afterwards  forced 
by  the  great  schism  on  churchmen  whose  natural  feeling 
would  have  been  averse  to  it.  Even  such  men  were 
compelled,  by  the  inextricable  confusion  which  arose  out 
of  the  pretensions  of  rival  popes,  to  ask  whether  there 
might  not  be  some  means  of  arbitrating  between  them. 
In  these  circumstances  the  universities — especially  that  of 
Paris — gained  an  authority  which  was  very  dangerous  to 
the  papacy  ;g  and  in  various  quarters  new  and  startling- 
opinions  were  propounded.  By  some,  it  was  maintained 
that  the  pope  was  not  essentially  necessary  to  the  church  ;lx 
others  denied  him  the  possession  of  the  “two  swords,” 

d  Mansi,  xxv.  151,  seqq. ;  Schrockh,  s  Giesel.  II.  iii.  160. 
xxxiii.  31-3.  h  Gerson  (?),  De  modis  uniendi  et 

e  Theiner,  Monum.  240,  244  ;  Na-  reform.  Ecclesiam,  Opp.  t.  ii.  163 ;  De 
tional  MSS.  of  Scotland,  ii.  No.  30 ;  Auferib.  Papae ;  Theod.  Vrie,  in  V.  d. 
Schrockh,  xxxiii.  34.  Hardt,  i.  33.  See  Giesel.  II.  iii.  161 ; 

f  See  Hallam,  M.  A.  ii.  31.  Schwab,  c.  xvii. 


446 


THE  PAPACY. 


Book  VIII. 


referring  to  the  benefits  which  the  church  had  derived 
from  the  intervention  of  Theodoric  the  Goth  and  of  Otho 
I.,  and  tracing  the  schism,  with  all  the  other  evils  of  the 
time,  to  the  secularity  of  the  popes.*  And  whereas  the 
popes  had  endeavoured  to  absorb  the  rights  of  the  whole 
episcopate,  the  episcopate  was  now  set  up  as  an  aristo¬ 
cracy,  in  opposition  to  the  monarchy  of  the  pope.k  There 
was  a  tendency  to  limit  the  papal  power ;  and  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  time  appeared  to  force  on  the  other  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  church  the  task  of  judging  those  who  claimed 
to  be  its  head.1  The  notions  that  popes  could  not  be  de¬ 
posed  except  for  heresy — that  the  occupant  of  the  chief 
see  was  exempt  from  earthly  judgment — were  denied  and 
refuted.111  If,  argues  the  writer  of  a  treatise  which  has 
been  commonly  ascribed  to  Gerson,  an  hereditary  king 
may  be  deposed — (for  this  he  assumes  as  a  thing  beyond 
question) — much  more  may  a  pope,  who  is  chosen  by  car¬ 
dinals — one  whose  father  and  grandfather  were  perhaps 
unable  to  find  beans  to  fill  their  bellies.  When,  he  adds, 
the  case  of  a  pope  is  in  question,  it  is  not  for  him,  but 
for  cardinals,  bishops,  and  secular  princes  to  assemble  a 
general  council ;  and  such  a  council  is  superior  to  the 
pope  and  may  control  him,  while  he  has  no  power  to 
dispense  with  its  canons.11  The  church,  according  to 
Gerson  and  others  of  the  same  school,  may  compel  a 
pope  to  resign.0  These  principles  were,  as  we  have  seen, 
carried  into  effect  at  the  council  of  Constance. 

(2.)  On  the  other  hand,  the  power  of  the  empire  had 
never  recovered  itself  since  the  time  of  Frederick  II. 

1  Theod.  Niem,  iii.  7  ;  Gerson,  de  m  Theod.  Niem,  de  Reform.  Ecd.es. 
summa  Rom.  Imp.  Auctoritate,  Opera,  i.  23,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.;  ib.  594-7. 
ii.  178;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  162-3.  n  De  Modis  uniendi  et  reform.  Ec- 

k  See  Gerson,  de  Potest.  Eccles.,  cles.  in  Gerson,  Opp.  ii.  166-7, 171,  182. 
Opera,  ii.  12 ;  Henr.  de  Hassia,  Con-  Gerson  always  maintained  that  coun- 
silium  Pacis,  in  Append,  to  Gerson,  cils  are  the  chief  authority  in  the  church, 

vol.  ii.;  Hefele,  vii.  316.  e.g.,  De  Exam.  Doctrinarian,  1.  i.  c.  8. 

1  Mosh.  ii.  658.  0  See  p.  343. 


Ciiap.  XI.  a.d.  1303-1418. 


THE  EMPIRE. 


447 


Dante,  at  the  beginning  of  the  period,  speaks  of  one 
of  the  two  suns  by  which  Rome  had  formerly  been 
enlightened  as  having  been  extinguished  by  the  other. p 
The  endeavours  of  Henry  VII.  to  restore  the  ancient 
rights  of  his  crown  were  cut  short  by  an  untimely  death ; 
and  all  that  he  had  achieved  was  forfeited  by  the  faults 
or  the  misfortunes  of  his  successors.  The  transfers  of 
the  empire  from  one  family  to  another,  while  they  added 
strength  and  importance  to  the  electoral  princes  of 
Germany,  weakened  the  imperial  authority ;  the  emperor 
or  king  of  the  Romans,  who  had  paid  dearly  for  his 
office  and  had  no  assurance  as  to  the  succession,  was 
under  the  strongest  temptation  to  regard  his  own  im¬ 
mediate  interest  alone,  and  to  sacrifice  the  permanent 
interests  of  his  crown.q  At  Constance,  indeed,  Sigismund 
was  able  to  exercise  influence  as  advocate  of  the  church ; 
but  the  decline  of  the  imperial  authority  from  its  former 
greatness  was  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  found  it  neces¬ 
sary  to  call  in  the  aid  of  John  XXIII.  for  the  assembling 
of  the  council,  as  the  European  kingdoms  had  ceased  to 
acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  the  empire.1" 

In  France  the  opposition  between  the  papacy  and  the 
crown  was  removed  by  the  settlement  of  the  popes  at 
Avignon,  which  rendered  them  subservient  tools  of  the 
sovereign.  But  this  subserviency,  in  addition  to  the 
degradation  of  the  papacy,  had  the  effect  of  exciting  the 
jealousy  of  the  English,  which  was  shown  in  many  forms 
of  resistance,  while  the  popes  found  themselves  obliged 
to  meet  it  by  compromise,  lest  the  nation  should  be 
provoked  to  throw  off  their  authority.3 

(3.)  To  this  time  belongs  the  completion  of  the  Canon 
Law.*  Clement  V.  ordered  the  determinations  of  the 

P  Purgat.  xvi.  106,  seqq.  fl  Giesel.  II.  iii.  106,  125. 

1  Kranz,  *  Saxonia,’  285  Schmidt,  *  See  Wasserschleben,  in  Herzog, 
iii.  506  ;  Sism.  vi.  7.  artt.  Kanonensammlungen  and  Ka- 

r  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  46-7.  nonisches  Rechtsbicch% 


44§ 


THE  CANON  LAW. 


Book  VIII. 


council  of  Vienne, u  with  other  decrees  which  he  had 
issued,  to  be  collected  into  five  books,  which  from  him 
derive  the  name  of  Clementines.  Among  these  it  is 
noted  that  under  the  head  of  Oaths  he  takes  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  declaring  the  oath  sworn  to  the  holy  see  by 
Henry  VII.  to  be  a  real  oath  of  fealty  ; x  and  that  under 
the  head  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Church  he  withdraws  the 
bull  Clericis  Laicos.y  After  having  published  these  books 
in  a  consistory  of  cardinals,  Clement  sent  them  in  1313 
to  the  university  of  Orleans,  which  he  had  founded;2 
but,  although  he  lived  a  year  and  a  half  longer,  he  did 
not  communicate  them  in  the  usual  manner  to  the  other 
universities,  and  it  is  said  by  a  writer  who  lived  two 
centuries  later,  that,  from  a  feeling  of  their  contrariety  in 
many  respects  to  Christian  simplicity  and  to  the  freedom 
of  religion,  he  gave  orders  on  his  death-bed  that  they 
should  be  abolished.0.  If  it  be  true  that  Clement  had 
such  scruples,  they  were  not  shared  by  his  successor; 
John  XXII.;  for  this  pope  sent  the  Clementines  to 
Paris  and  Bologna  in  1317,  that  they  might  serve  as  a 
text  for  lectures. b 

The  Clementirfes  were  the  last  addition  to  the  body  of 
ecclesiastical  law  which  was  put  forth  with  the  fulness 
of  papal  sanction.0  At  an  earlier  time  such  decretals  as 
did  not  appear  in  Gratian’s  compilation  had  been  styled 
Extrava^ants.  After  the  publication  of  Gregory  IXth’s 
five  books,  the  same  name  was  used  to  designate  such 
more  recent  decretals  as  had  not  yet  been  included  in 
any  authorized  collection  ; d  and  it  has  since  become  the 

u  See  Hefele,  vi.  474.  I.  Joh.  ap.  Baluz.  i.  120,  ii.  137  ;  W. 

x  L.  ii.  tit.  17.  See  above,  p.  74.  Nang,  contin.  73;  Bern.  Guid.  60; 
y  L.  v.  tit  17.  See  vol.  vi.  p.  317  ;  Mansi,  xxv.  369. 
and  above,  p.  3.  c  Hence  the  collection  which  ends 

z  Walter,  236  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  99.  with  them  has  been  called  “  Corpus 
“  Aventinus,  601.  He  says,  “Hsec  Juris  clausum."  Wasserschl.  in  Her- 
aWillelmo  Occomensi  accepi.”  20 g,  vii.  329. 

b  See  John’s  letter,  Corp.  Juris  Ca-  d  Walter,  237. 
non.  III.  ii.  1,  ed.  Taurin.  1620 ;  Vita 


Chap.  XI. 


ANNATES. 


449 


general  title  of  the  decretals  issued  by  John  XXII.  and 
his  successors,  as  these  were  never  collected  or  com¬ 
municated  to  the  universities  by  papal  authority.6  The 
selection  of  the  documents  which  are  classed  under  this 
head  is  attributed  to  Chapuis,  who  edited  the  Canon  Law 
in  i5oo.f 

The  new  legislation  was  in  the  same  spirit  with  that 
which  had  gone  before  it  Although  strong  assaults  were 
sometimes  made  on  portions  of  the  false  decretals,  no 
one  ventured  to  attack  them  as  a  whole  ;  and  so  long 
as  these  retained  their  authority,  any  attempts  of  coun¬ 
cils  to  limit  the  power  of  the  pope  were  likely  to  be 
nugatory. g 

(4.)  The  popes  of  this  time  not  only  maintained  their 
older  claims  as  to  money,  patronage,  and  the  like,  but 
endeavoured  to  enlarge  on  them.  Thus  John  XXII. h 
imposed  the  tax  of  annates  or  first-fruits — a  payment  for 
which  there  had  been  some  shadow  of  precedent  in  the 
demands  made  by  bishops  (sometimes  with  papal  sanc¬ 
tion)  from  those  who  were  presented  to  benefices  by 
them ;  although  in  earlier  times  such  exactions  had 
been  condemned  by  the  church  and  its  most  eminent 
teachers,  such  as  Chrysostom  in  the  east  and  Gregory 
the  Great  in  the  west.1  John  in  1319  extended  it  to 
all  benefices,  both  elective  and  non-elective,  fixing  the 
amount  at  half  the  income  of  the  first  year,  and  profess¬ 
ing  that  the  law  was  to  be  for  three  years  only ; k  but  it 
appears  to  have  been  renewed,  and  the  exaction  was 
yet  further  enforced  by  Boniface  IX.1  The  popes  also 


e  Walter,  237  ;  Schrockh,  xxviii.  10. 
f  Walter,  237  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  101. 
s  Schrockh,  xxviii.  6. 
h  Thomassin,  III.  ii.  58.  1-3.  See 
Lenfant,  Cone,  de  Const,  ii.  137-8  ; 
Herzog,  art.  A)inaten;  Dollinger, 
Materialien,’  ii.  Vorr.  6-7. 

1  Planck,  v.  591-6 ;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 

VOL.  VII. 


1 18.  See  the  tract  De  Ruina  Eccl.  c. 
7,  in  N.  de  Clemangis. 

k  See  Extra v.  Commun.  III.  tit.  ii. 
cc.  10-11.  Thomassin  supposes  that  the 
exaction  fell  only  on  the  lesser  digni¬ 
ties,  bishopricks  and  abbacies  being 
exempt.  1.  c.  5. 

1  Platina,  275  (who  says  that  it  was 

29 


45° 


PAPAL  EXACTIONS. 


Book  VIII. 


claimed  the  income  of  bishopricks,  etc.,  during  vacancy 
( fructus  viedii  temporis );  and,  although  Alexander  V. 
and  Martin  V.  professed  to  give  up  this  claim,  they  still 
retained  the  first-fruits.111  The  “right  of  spoils,”11  which 
had  been  denounced  by  popes  when  claimed  by  tem¬ 
poral  sovereigns,  was  now  asserted  for  the  papacy,  and 
with  a  view  to  this  and  other  purposes  their  collectors 
and  spies  were  sent  into  various  countries.0  Fees  of  all 
sorts  were  raised  in  amount,  and  new  occasions  for  ex¬ 
acting  them  were  invented.11  A  writer  of  the  time  speaks 
of  the  papal  court  as  drawing  gold  even  out  of  flint ;  <i 
and  an  English  chronicler  describes  the  charges  on 
appointments  as  so  heavy  that  in  many  cases  the  payers 
never  recovered  from  them.r  The  luxury  of  the  court 
of  Avignon  required  an  increase  of  means,  while  the 
popes  were  unable  to  collect  the  revenues  of  their  Italian 
states ; s  and  when,  in  consequence  of  the  schism,  western 
Christendom  was  burdened  with  the  cost  of  two  papal 
establishments,  the  exactions  became  more  exorbitant 
than  ever.*  All  the  old  means  of  raising  money  were 


submitted  to  by  all  but  the  English, 
who  refused  to  admit  it  except  as  to 
bishopricks).  See  Rayn.  1399.  12,  with 
Mansi’s  note;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  141-2  ; 
and  for  French  declarations  against  the 
new  exactions,  Lib.  de  l’Egl.  Gall.  ii. 
564,  seqq. 

m  Thomassin,  III.  ii.  58. 

™  Jus  exuviarum  or  spoliorum. 
See  vol.v.  209,  336-8,  etc. 

0  Thomassin,  III.  ii.  57.  5;  Planck, 
v.  607,  611-13;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  122.  Tho¬ 
massin  traces  this  to  the  necessities  of 
Clement  VII. 

P  Aureum  Speculum  Papse,  in  Fas- 
cic.  Rer.  Exp.  etc.,  ii-  71  ;  Planck,  v. 
590;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  144. 

1  De  Ruina  Ecclesiae,  c.  9.  An 
indication  of  the  rapacity  practised  by 
officials  of  all  kinds  may  be  found  in  a 
letter  of  Benedict  XII.,  announcing 
his  election  to  Edward  III.  As  the 


bearers  of  such  letters  were  often 
found  troublesome  and  greedy,  the 
pope  had  made  his  messengers  swear 
that  they  would  be  content  with  his 
pay,  and  would  neither  ask  nor  receive 
anything  elsewhere.  Rymer,  ii.  900. 

r  Will,  de  Dene,  Hist.  Roffensis,  in 
Wharton,  Ang.  Sac.  i.  376.  It  appears 
from  the  Annals  of  St.  Alban’s  that 
abbot  John  de  Maryns  paid  for  his 
confirmation  1508/.  6$.  8d.  (equal  to 
22,580/.  in  our  day)  to  Boniface  VIII. 
and  his  cardinals,  besides  large.gifts  to 
the  officials.  (Gesta  Abbatum,  ii.  56  ; 
Riley,  Introduction,  iii.  46.)  See  also 
for  the  difficulties  into  which  Abp. 
Greenfield,  of  York  (a.d.  1304),  was 
brought  by  the  expenses  of  his  appoint¬ 
ment,  Raine,  i.  364. 

8  Giesel.  II.  iii.  106. 

1  Gerson  (?)  De  modis  un.  et  reform. 
Eccl.,  Opp.  ii.  1S4-5. 


Chap.  XI. 


DISCONTENT  OF  ENGLAND. 


45  1 


strained  to  the  uttermost ;  new  devices  were  invented 
for  the  same  purpose, u  and  each  of  the  rival  courts 
was  glad  to  borrow  the  ideas  of  the  other  in  this  respect. 
Every  pope  at  the  beginning  of  his  pontificate  set  forth 
a  code  of  chancery-rules,  in  which,  adopting  the  devices 
of  his  predecessors  for  extracting  money  from  the  bene¬ 
fices  of  the  church,  he  usually  added  such  further  orders 
of  the  same  tendency  as  his  own  ingenuity  or  that  of  his 
advisers  could  suggest.*  The  censures  of  the  church 
were  prostituted  as  means  to  compel  the  payment  of 
money.  While  there  was  an  affectation  of  checking 
pluralities  in  general/  an  exception  was  made  in  favour 
of  the  cardinals,  so  that  a  cardinal  might  enjoy  the 
monstrous  number  of  four  or  five  hundred  benefices.2 

Such  things  were  not  allowed  to  pass  without  remon¬ 
strance/  In  England,  where  the  patience  of  the  nation 
was  most  severely  tried  by  them/  there  were  frequent 
and  indignant  manifestations  of  discontent,  and  statutes 
were  enacted  with  a  view  of  checking  the  practices  of  the 
papal  court.  The  laity  cried  out  loudly,  in  parliament 
and  elsewhere,  charging  the  depopulation  and  impover¬ 
ishment  of  the  country  on  the  Roman  exactions,  and 


u  See  above,  pp.  223-7.  Crusades 
seem  to  have  been  sometimes  pro¬ 
claimed,  with  a  license  of  commuting 
personal  service  for  money,  rather  with 
a  view  of  getting  the  money  than  the 
service.  (See  Cron,  di  Bologna,  in 
Murat,  xviii.  447.)  Urban  VI.  in  1386, 
in  order  to  help  John  of  Gaunt’s  expe¬ 
dition  “  against  the  schismatics  of 
Spain,”  authorized  a  Carmelite  to 
make  fifty  honorary  papal  chaplains ; 
and  the  appointment  was  eagerly 
sought  and  paid  for  by  clergy,  monks, 
and  friars,  as  offering  an  exemption 
from  duty  to  superiors.  (Gesta  Abba- 
tum  S.  Albani,  ii.  417.)  Richard  II. 
and  Henry  IV.  complain  of  the  results 
of  this.  (Rymer,  vii.  810;  viii.  113.) 
One  of  the  chaplains,  who  had  been  a 


monk  of  St.  Albans,  is  found  soliciting 
readmission  to  the  abbey  forty  years 
later.  Joh.  de  Amundesham,  i.  86-8  ; 
ii.  Introd.  18-20. 

x  Planck,  v.  587-8.  The  writer  of 
*  De  Ruina  Ecclesim  ’  complains  that 
the  new  rules  were  usually  snares  which 
gave  occasion  for  litigation,  c.  11. 
y  See  below,  p.  463. 
z  De  Ruina  Eccl.  14 ;  Planck,  v. 
584  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  144. 

a  See  a  letter  of  Charles  VI.  of 
France,  in  Mart.  Thes.  i.  1614. 

b  Adam  of  Murimuth  says  that  the 
new  exactions  of  John  XXII.  were 
disregarded  in  Germany  ; — “Anglici 
vero,  sicut  boni  asini,  quicquid  eis  im- 
ponitur  tolerantes,  in  his  et  aliis,  quan- 
tumcunque  gravibus,  paruerunt.”  28. 


452 


ANTIPAPALISM  OF  ENGLAND. 


Cook  VIII. 


on  the  draining  of  the  wealth  of  English  benefices  by 
foreigners.0  It  was  complained  that  such  persons  were 
in  many  cases  enemies  of  the  English  crown,  that  they 
betrayed  the  secrets  of  the  realm ;  and  on  such  grounds 
the  foreign  holders  of  English  benefices  were  frequently 
deprived,  and  if  they  were  found  in  the  country  (which 
they  rarely  honoured  with  their  presence)  were  obliged 
to  quit  it.d  Laws  were  passed  to  prevent  the  holding  of 
English  preferment  by  aliens.e  Complaints  were  made 
by  parliament  that  the  money  drawn  from  England  under 
the  name  of  annates  and  other  papal  dues  was  employed 
in  the  interest  of  the  national  enemies ;  and  in  1404  an 
act  was  passed  by  which  bishops  were  forbidden  to  sub¬ 
mit  to  the  increased  rate  of  payments  which  the  Roman 
court  had  begun  to  exact.1  Papal  collectors  were  re¬ 
quired,  on  landing  in  England,  to  swear  that  they  would 
do  nothing  to  the  prejudice  of  the  crown  or  of  the  king¬ 
dom  ; 5  and  sometimes,  when  returning  with  the  spoil  of 


c  Hemingb.  ii.  401,  403,  etc.  An¬ 
other  grievance  was  that  the  heads  of 
religious  orders,  as  Cluniacs,  Praemon- 
stratensians,  and  Cistercians,  levied 
money  largely  from  the  English  houses 
of  their  orders.  See  Stat.  of  Carlisle, 
35  Edw.  I.  (a.d.  1307). 

d  Thus  Edward  II.,  in  1309,  writes 
to  a  cardinal  who  was  related  to  Cle¬ 
ment  V.  and  had  been  nominated  by 
him  to  the  deanery  of  St.  Paul’s.  The 
letter  sets  forth  the  cardinal’s  inability 
to  fulfil  the  statutable  duties,  and  ex¬ 
presses  a  hope  that  he  will  withdraw 
his  pretensions  ;  but  it  is  significantly 
added  that,  if  property  bestowed  on 
the  church  be  abused,  contrary  to  the 
intention  of  the  givers,  it  may  be  re¬ 
sumed  by  them  or  their  heirs.  (Rymer, 
ii.  72.)  Edward  III.,  in  1341,  seized 
a  prebend  at  Lincoln  because  the 
holder,  cardinal  Talleyrand,  adhered 
to  Philip  of  Valois  (ib.  1134).  In  1379, 
when  Aymer  de  la  Roche,  archdeacon 
of  Canterbury,  sided  with  the  French, 


he  was  deprived  for  this  and  for  non¬ 
residence,  and  Richard  II.  ordered 
that  his  revenues  should  be  applied  to 
the  rebuilding  of  the  cathedral.  (Ib. 
vii.  217,  271,  302,  346,  etc.)  Urban  VI. 
recommends  John  of  Fordham  as  his 
successor,  if  the  archbishop  (Simon  of 
Sudbury)  should  find  him  able  “  bene 
legere,  bene  construere,  et  bene  cantare, 
ac  congrue  loqui  Latinis  verbis,  et  alias 
idoneum  .  .  .  vel  etiam  si  bene  non 
cantaret,  dummodo  in  tuis  manibus 
juret  ad  sancta  Dei  Evangelia,  quod 
infra  annum  bene  cantare  addiscet.” 
(Wilkins,  ii.  148.)  Cf.  Wilkins,  ii.  574 ; 
Baluz.  Vitae  Pap.  ii.  476,  708-9. 

e  3  R>c-  II.  c.  3  (1379);  1  Hen. 
V.  c.  7 ;  Collier,  iii.  147. 

f  6  Hen.  IV.  c.  1. 

B  Rymer,  vii.  603,  etc.;  Collier,  iii. 
202.  Thus,  in  1372,  Arnold  Gamier, 
a  papal  receiver,  was  made  to  swear 
fidelity  to  the  king,  and  that  he  would 
not  send  money  or  precious  things  to 
the  pope  or  others  out  of  the  realm 


Chap.  XI.  ACTS  OF  PROVISORS  AND  PRAEMUNIRE.  453 


England,  they  were  compelled  to  disgorge  it  before  em¬ 
barking.11  There  were  frequent  orders  against  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  papal  documents  injurious  to  the  dignity  of 
the  crown,  especially  of  such  as  assumed  the  disposal  of 
patronage ; 1  and  the  statutes  of  provisors  and  prcemunire 
were  enacted  in  order  to  check  the  Roman  aggressions 
in  this  kind.  The  first  act  of  provisors,  passed  in  1350-1, 
after  setting  forth  the  manner  in  which  the  popes  had 
usurped  patronage,  and  the  ill  results  which  had  followed, 
decrees  that  elections  to  bishopricks  and  other  elective 
dignities  shall  be  free,  agreeably  to  the  grants  of  the 
founders ;  that  no  reservation,  collation,  or  provision  of 
the  court  of  Rome  to  the  contrary  shall  take  effect,  but 
that  in  such  cases  the  king  shall  present,  as  his  progeni¬ 
tors  did  before  free  election  was  granted ;  forasmuch  as 
such  election  was  granted  on  condition  that  it  should 
be  preceded  by  the  royal  licence  and  followed  by  the 
royal  assent,  and,  if  these  conditions  fail,  the  right  of 
presentation  reverts  to  the  original  state. k  By  the 
statute  of  prcemunire ,  in  1353,  it  was  enacted  that  any 
one  who  should  carry  to  a  foreign  tribunal  matter  which 
was  cognizable  in  the  king’s  court,  or  who  should  try  to 
impeach  in  any  foreign  court  a  judgment  which  had  been; 


without  license,  nor  receive  any  papal 
letters  without  showing  them  to  the 
king  and  his  council.  Rym.  iii.  933. 

h  lb.  ii.  1236-7 ;  Planck,  v.  672 ; 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  126-8 ;  Lingard,  iii.  258- 


employing  the  pope’s  assumed  powers 
of  reservation  and  provision  for  their 
own  purposes,  although  they  thereby 
really  aided  the  papal  usurpation  and 
weakened  the  crown.  Thus  it  was 


62. 

1  See  many  such  of  Edward  III.’s 
reign  in  Rymer,  e.g.,  ii.  726,  1236-7  ; 
iii.  380.  See  too  Wilkins,  iii.  107,  etc. 
In  1380  it  was  enacted  that  any  of  the 
king’s  subjects  who  should  become 
agents  for  foreigners,  and  so  should 
send  money  out  of  the  realm,  should 
be  liable  to  the  same  punishments  as 
the  foreigners  themselves  for  a  like 
offence.  (Pauli,  iv.  591.)  Sometimes, 
however,  kings  made  the  false  step  of 


when  Edward  II.,  after  the  death  of 
Abp.  Winchelsey,  made  use  of  the 
pope  to  exclude  Thomas  Cobham,  who 
had  been  elected  by  the  monks  of  Can¬ 
terbury.  See  Wilkins,  ii.  424,  427-8, 
430*7- 

k  25  Edw.  III.,  Stat.  of  the  Realm, 
i.  3x6.  In  the  answer  to  the  *  Articles 
of  the  Clergy,’  9  Edw.  II.  c.  14,  it  had 
been  said,  “  Fiant  [electiones  episco- 
porum]  liberse,  juxta  formam  statu- 
torum  et  ordinationum.” 


45-] 


RESISTANCE  TO 


Dook  VIII. 


pronounced  by  the  king’s  court,  should  be  cited  to  an¬ 
swer  before  the  king  or  his  representatives,  and  in  case 
of  non-appearance  should  be  outlawed,  should  forfeit  his 
property,  and  be  committed  to  prison.1  The  provisions 
of  these  two  acts  were  repeatedly  enforced  by  later  legis¬ 
lation  ;  and  the  headship  of  religious  houses  was  placed 
on  the  same  footing  as  other  dignities  with  regard  to 
the  king’s  right  of  presentation.111  The  popes  affected  to 
set  such  laws  at  nought,  and  to  maintain  their  claims  to 
patronage ;  Boniface  IX.  went  so  far  as  to  order  that  the 
antipapal  acts  should  be  erased  from  the  English  statute- 
book,"  and  there  were  continual  attempts  to  evade  the 
force  of  the  prohibitions.  But  the  parliament,  the  clergy, 
and  the  whole  nation,  stood  firm  in  their  union  against 
the  papal  encroachments  ;  and  at  last  the  utmost  that  the 
popes  could  do/  by  way  of  saving  appearances,  was  to 
accept  the  English  king’s  nomination  of  the  persons  in 
whose  behalf  the  pretended  rights  of  the  papacy  were 
to  be  exercised.0  The  resistance  of  the  English  to  the 


papal  pretension  to  confer  the  temporalities  of  sees  has 
already  been  mentioned.*1  But  in  the  weaker  kingdom 
of  Scotland  this  pretension  seems  to  have  been  un- 


1  27  Edvv.  III.  st.  i.  c.  1. 

m  38  Edw.  III.  stat.  2;  3  Ric.  II.  c. 
3;  12  Ric.  II.  c.  15;  13  Ric.  II.  c. 
2;  16  Ric.  II.  c.  5;  4  Hen.  V.  c.  4. 
Edward  de  Bromfield,  agent  at  Rome 
for  the  abbey  of  St.  Edmund  at  Bury, 
got  himself  appointed  by  Urban  VI. 
to  the  abbacy  on  its  falling  vacant,  in 
1379  ;  but  on  coming  to  England  he 
was  imprisoned,  by  virtue  of  the  statute 
of  provisors,  and  the  pope  was  unable 
to  carry  through  his  nomination,  al¬ 
though  he  got  a  pension  out  of  the 
abbey  revenues  for  Bromfield,  and 
eventually  promoted  him  to  the  see  of 
Llandaff.  Walsingh.  i.  414-29  ;  ii.  68, 
180 ;  Godwin,  608  ;  Monast.  Angl.  iii. 
no  ;  Lingard,  iii.  343  ;  Pauli,  iv.  591. 

"  Walsingh.  ii.  200;  Rayn.  1391.  15. 


The  annalist  traces  Richard  II.’s  cala¬ 
mities  to  his  having  assented  to  the 
laws  by  which  the  papal  assumptions 
were  limited.  Ib.  14. 

0  Rymer,  vii.  664,  672,  698,  798-9 ; 
viii.  233,  244,  etc.;  Walsingh.  ii.  228; 
Collier,  iii.  203,  301;  Lingard,  iii.  345-9; 
Hallam,  ii.  38;  Pauli,  iv.  592-3.  John 
Galeazzo,  of  Milan,  exercised  ecclesias¬ 
tical  patronage  freely,  while  Urban  IV., 
in  consideration  of  receiving  the  papal 
dues,  confirmed  his  appointments ;  and 
it  is  said  that  this  system  worked  better 
than  the  usual  practice,  by  which  the 
pope  was  guided  in  the  disposal  of 
patronage  by  the  cardinals,  who  were 
corrupt.  Chron.  Placent.  in  Murat, 
xvi.  547  ;  Annal.  Mediol.  ib.  802. 

P  Page  260. 


Chap.  XI. 


PAPAL  CLAIMS. 


455 


opposed.  Thus  John  XXII.  in  1323  presented  John  of 
Lindsay,  a  canon  of  Glasgow,  to  the  bishoprick  of  that 
see,  professing  to  give  him  the  temporalities  as  well  as 
the  spiritual  charge;  and  he  nominated  an  Italian  to 
the  prebend  which  had  been  formerly  held  by  the  new 
bishop.  But  Lindsay,  on  returning  from  the  papal  court 
to  Scotland,  was  required  to  admit  a  nominee  of  the  king 
to  this  prebend ;  and  he  submitted,  both  he  and  the  nomi¬ 
nee  protesting  that  the  admission  should  not  interfere 
with  the  papal  rights.  Yet  while  in  this  lesser  matter 
the  crown  prevailed,  it  is  remarkable  that  no  objection 
was  raised  against  the  pope’s  claim  to  bestow  the  tem¬ 
poralities  of  the  bishoprick. 

In  other  countries  also  sovereigns  sometimes  imitated 
the  English  example  of  resistance  to  the  papacy.  Thus 
Philip  of  Valois  seized  the  revenues  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  absentees,  although  at  the  entreaty  of  A’D'  1 
his  queen  he  afterwards  restored  so  much  of  them  as  be¬ 
longed  to  cardinals.1*  Alfonso  XI.  of  Castille  endeavoured 
to  withstand  the  papal  claim  of  provisions;8  and  Sigismund 
(afterwards  emperor),  provoked  by  Boniface  IX.’s  acknow¬ 
ledgment  of  his  rival,  Ladislaus,  as  king  of  Hungary,  forbade 
all  exercise  of  patronage  by  the  popes  in  that  kingdom.* 

(5.)  The  exaggerated  pretensions  which  the  clergy  had 
set  up  as  to  rights  of  jurisdiction,  and  of  exemption  from 
secular  authority,  tended  to  react  to  their  own  disadvan¬ 
tage.  In  Germany,  where  the  ecclesiastical  class  feeling 
of  the  prelates  was  modified  by  their  position  as  great 
secular  lords,  it  was  established  that  in  temporal  matters 
the  appeal  should  be  to  the  emperor  alone  ;  and  this  was 
declared,  not  only  by  Lewis  of  Bavaria,  but  by  Charles 
IV.  in  his  golden  bull." 

q  Theiner,  226-7  ■  Jos.  Robertson,  iii.  723. 

Pref.  to  ‘  Concilia  Scotiae,’  74-6.  s  Rayn.  1330.  44 ;  1344.  54 ;  1348.  14  ; 

r  Baluz.  Vitae  Pap.  Aven.  ii.  710;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  130. 

Rayn.  1346.  39;  1347.  24;  Dach.  Spicil.  1  lb.  150.  u  lb.  169. 


456  ECCLESIASTICAL  AND  SECULAR  Book  VIII 

Iii  France,  where  the  liberties  of  the  national  church 
had  been  affirmed  and  secured  by  the  pragmatic  sanction 
and  by  the  “establishments”  of  St.  Lewis,  and  where  the 
popes  were  controlled  in  some  degree  by  the  fact  of  their 
residence  at  Avignon,  the  crown  was  able  to  hold  its 
ground  against  the  ambition  of  the  papacy.31  The  sove¬ 
reigns  were  in  general  disposed  to  favour  the  hierarchy 
as  far  as  possible,  in  order  to  secure  the  influence  of  the 
bishops;  but  the  nobles  were  always  at  strife  with  the  clergy, 
and  on  both  sides  there  were  continual  complaints  of  ag¬ 
gression  and  encroachment/  Thus,  at  a  session  of  the 
parliament  of  Paris,  held  under  Philip  of  Valois  in  1329, 
Peter  of  Cugnieres,  a  knight  and  one  of  the  king’s  coun¬ 
sellors,  after  discoursing  on  the  text,  “  Render  unto  Caesar 
the  things  which  are  Caesar’s,  and  unto  God  the  things 
that  are  God's,”  brought  forward  sixty- six  articles  as  to 
which  he  asserted  that  the  clergy  had  encroached  on  the 
rights  of  the  laity.2  These  articles  related  to  such  things 
only  as  could  show  no  warrant  of  law  or  privilege;  for 
example,  there  was  no  complaint  as  to  the  exemption  of  the 
clergy  from  secular  judgment,  but  it  was  complained  that 
the  tonsure  was  so  bestowed  as  to  confer  this  exemption 
on  unfit  persons — on  boys  and  on  married  men,  on  some 
who  were  illiterate,  and  on  others  who  were  disqualified  by 
character. a  At  a  second  session  of  the  same  body,  Peter 
Roger,  archbishop  elect  of  Sens  (afterwards  pope  Clement 
VI.),  stood  forward  as  the  champion  of  the  clergy,  and 
replied  to  the  articles  in  order, b  declaring  that,  although 
there  are  two  swords — the  spiritual  and  the  temporal — • 
both  might  be  in  the  hands  of  one  and  the  same  person. 
Thus,  he  said,  it  was  in  ancient  Israel ;  thus  it  was  in  the 
case  of  IVlelchizedek,  and  in  Him  who  is  a  priest  after 

*  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  50;  see  Libertez  221,  seqq.;  Mansi,  xxv.  884;  Giesel.  II. 
de  l’Eglise  Gall.  ii.  147,  seqq.  iii.  174. 

y  Giesel.  II.  iii.  173.  a  Art.  23:  Planck,  v.  557. 

Goldast,  ii.  1362-6;  Bubcus,  iv.  b  Goldast,  ii.  1365. 


Chap.  XI. 


POWER  IN  FRANCE. 


457 


the  order  of  Melchizedek ;  and  so,  too,  it  was  in  St.  Peter, 
as  appeared  from  the  punishment  of  Ananias.  Our 
Lord  would  have  both  swords  in  the  possession  of  the 
church ;  He  did  not  charge  the  apostle  to  cast  away  his 
sword,  but  to  sheathe  it ;  by  which  was  meant  that  the 
church,  although  having  all  jurisdiction,  should  refrain 
from  the  exercise  of  it  in  cases  of  blood. c  The  king, 
hampered  by  his  fear  of  the  danger  which  threatened 
him  from  England,  was  unable  to  carry  out  with  firmness 
the  policy  which  his  wishes  suggested.  At  a  later  session 
it  was  declared  in  his  name,  and  by  the  mouth  of  Peter  of 
Cugnieres  himself,  that  Philip  was  resolved  to  maintain 
the  rights  of  the  church  unimpaired. d  The  king  was 
content  with  the  promise  of  the  bishops  that  they  would 
redress  the  grievances  which  were  alleged ;  but  when  the 
bishop  of  Autun,  Peter  Bertrandi  (who  had  answered 
Cugnieres's  articles  at  great  length),  insisted  on  the  griev¬ 
ances  of  the  clergy,  and  asked  for  a  clearer  declaration  in 
their  favour,  he  was  told  that  the  clergy  had  a  certain 
time  allowed  them  for  reform,  and  that,  if  they  neglected 
this  opportunity,  the  king  would  apply  such  remedies  as 
should  please  God  and  the  people.6 

The  parliament  of  Paris  strongly  opposed  the  hierar¬ 
chical  claims,  not  only  restraining  the  bounds  of  the 
ecclesiastical  judgments,  but  asserting  a  sort  of  oversight 
of  them,  and  assuming  to  itself  the  right  of  judging  in 
some  kinds  of  cases  which  had-  hitherto  been  regarded  as 
belonging  to  ecclesiastical  cognizance/  and  the  clergy 
continued  to  complain  that  laymen  inflicted  grievances 
on  them,  especially  by  interfering  with  their  supposed 
rights  of  jurisdiction^ 

c  Goldast,  ii.  1329-30,  1370.  of  the  clergy,  and  in  assertion  of  the 

d  lb.  1382  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  77.  national  freedom,  is  untrue.  Giesel. 

e  Goldast,  ii.  1383.  The  addition  (p.  II.  iii.  178.  f  lb.  179-81. 

1383)  that  the  king,  after  having  waited  R  Eg.,  a  council  “apud  S.  Tiberium,  ’ 

n  vain,  enacted  a  severe  law  in  restraint  in  the  diocese  of  Agde,  a.d.  1389. 


45s 


ECCLESIASTICAL  AND  SECULAR 


Book  VIII. 


In  England  there  were  frequent  collisions  as  to  the 
rival  claims  of  the  ecclesiastical  and  the  secular  courts. 
When  the  clergy  complained  to  Edward  II.,  in  1309,  that 
clerks  arrested  on  suspicion  of  crime  were  not  imme¬ 
diately  made  over  to  their  ordinaries,  “  as  of  right  ought 
to  be  done,”  but  were  kept  in  the  secular  prison,  the  king 
replied  that  such  clerks  should  be  given  up  to  their  eccle¬ 
siastical  superiors  on  demand,  but  with  the  condition 
that  they  should  be  brought  before  the  king’s  judges 
for  trial  “  as  heretofore  hath  been  customary.”11  So,  in 
answering  the  petition  known  as  Articuli  cleri ,  Edward 
says  that,  when  a  matter  should  come  before  both  the 
spiritual  and  the  temporal  courts — as  in  the  case  of 
violently  laying  hands  on  a  clerk — the  king’s  court  shall 
treat  it  “as  to  that  court  itself  shall  seem  expedient,  the 
ecclesiastical  judgment  notwithstanding.”1  Even  that 
weak  prince  found  it  necessary  to  remonstrate  again  and 
again  with  the  popes  on  account  of  encroachments  in 
this  and  in  other  respects  ;k  and,  under  his  successors, 
such  remonstrances  were  both  frequent  and  forcible. 

In  1344,  Edward  III.,  in  consideration  of  a  large 
subsidy  from  the  clergy,  granted  that  no  archbishop  or 
bishop  should  be  impeached  before  the  king’s  justices 
for  any  crime,  unless  by  special  order  from  the  crown1 — 
a  concession  which,  while  relaxing  the  exercise  of  the 
royal  authority  for  the  time,  implies  an  assertion  of  its 
right.  In  the  end  of  the  century,  Richard  II.  condemned 
archbishop  Arundel  to  perpetual  banishment  and  to  for¬ 
feiture  of  his  property,1"  and  Henry  IV.,  although  desirous 
to  keep  well  with  the  clergy  on  account  of  the  defect 
in  his  title  to  the  crown,  proceeded  without  hesitation 

h  Wilkins,  ii.  3x8.  of  the  Realm,  i.  209. 

1  9  Edw.  II.  Stat.  i.  c.  6.  See  too  k  Rymer,  ii.  391,  393-4,  398,  401,  449, 
the  complaint  as  to  the  tendency  of  460,  468-9,  493,  499,  526,  etc. 

spiritual  courts  to  draw  to  themselves  1  18  Edw.  III.  Stat.  iii.  c.  1. 

business  out  of  the  civil  courts.  Stat.  m  Eulog.  Hist.  iii.  376. 


Chap.  XI. 


JURISDICTIONS  IN  ENGLAND. 


459 


against  such  of  the  order  as  opposed  him.  He  put  to 
death,  by  secular  judgment,  some  Franciscans  and  other 
priests  who  had  plotted  in  behalf  of  a  pretender  to  the 
name  of  the  dethroned  Richard.11  Merks,  bishop  of 
Carlisle,  was  deprived  of  his  see,  and  had  difficulty  in 
escaping  with  life.0  The  king  brought  Scrope,  arch¬ 
bishop  of  York,  to  trial  for  high  treason,  and  when  the 

chief  justice,  Sir  William  Gascoigne,  refused 

.  ,  .  .  .....  a. d.  1405. 

to  act  as  judge,  saying  that  the  king  himself 

had  no  right  to  condemn  a  bishop  to  death,  a  less 
scrupulous  person,  Sir  William  Fulthorpe,  was  found  for 
the  work,  and  the  archbishop,  having  been  found  guilty, 
was  beheaded.5  Archbishop  Arundel,  who  had  been 
restored  to  Canterbury  on  the  change  of  dynasty,  had 
contented  himself  with  urging  that  his  brother  primate 
should  be  reserved  for  the  pope’s  judgment;*1  and  al¬ 
though  Innocent  VI.  anathematized  those  who  had  been 
concerned  in  the  archbishop’s  death,  the  sentence  was 
ineffectual,  so  that  Gregory  XII.  found  it  expedient  to 
release  them  on  condition  of  their  expressing  sorrow  for 
their  offence/ 

In  1354,  archbishop  Islip  complained  in  parliament 
that  the  secular  judges  frequently  exceeded  their  au¬ 
thority  by  trying  and  condemning  to  death  “  the  Lord’s 
anointed” — clergymen,  and  monks  in  holy  orders.  To 
this  the  king  himself  and  others  replied  that  the  privileges 


n  Eulog.  Hist,  contin.  iii.  389-94; 
Walsingh.  ii.  249-50  ;  Capgrave,  279  ; 
Pauli,  v.  50. 

0  Walsingh.  ii.  245-7  >'  Pauli,  v.  50. 

P  Clem.  Maydcstane  de  Martyrio  R. 
Scrope,  in  Wharton,  Angl  Sac.  ii.  370; 
Eulog.  Hist.  iii.  405,  seqq  ,  Collier,  iii. 
273  ;  Pauli,  v.  38  ;  Fulthorpe  was  pro¬ 
bably  son  of  a  late  judge,  “but  in  no 
way  himself  connected  with  the  law.” 
(Foss,  iv.  165-6.)  Scrope  was  regarded 
as  a  martyr,  and  many  miracles  are 
recorded  of  him  after  death.  Herm. 


Corner,  in  Eccard,  ii.  1228. 

1  Eulog.  Hist,  contin.  407  ;  Milm. 
v.  524. 

r  Raynald.  1405.  21-2  ;  Eulog.  Hist, 
contin.  409  ;  Walsingh.  ii.  270,  273 ; 
Ling.  iii.  441  ;  Paidi,  v.  51.  It  was 
believed  that,  from  the  hour  of  his 
judgment  against  Scrope,  the  king  was 
struck  with  leprosy.  (Eulog.  Hist, 
cont.  407-8.)  Arundel  seems  to  have 
been  afraid  to  publish  Innocent’s  ana¬ 
thema.  Engl.  Chi'onicle,  ed.  Davies 
(Camd.  Soc.  1856),  p.  23. 


IMMUNITIES  OF  CLERGY  DISALLOWED.  Cook  VIII. 


460 

claimed  by  the  clergy  were  an  encouragement  to  crime  ; 
that  when  criminal  clerks  were  made  over  to  their  bishops, 
their  prison  life,  instead  of  being  a  punishment,  became 
a  time  of  relaxation  and  good  living,  with  all  the  tempta¬ 
tions  which  arise  out  of  idleness  ;  and  that  the  sight  of 
such  things  incited  others  to  crime.  The  primate  seems 
to  have  found  these  statements  irresistible,  and  gives 
orders  that  the  treatment  of  clerical  delinquents  in  prison 
shall  be  more  severe,  especially  as  to  diet,  which,  even 
on  Sundays,  is  never  to  be  more  luxurious  than  bread, 
vegetables,  and  small  beer.3  But  the  clergy  still  found 
that  their  claims  were  not  respected.  The  convocation 
of  Canterbury,  in  1399,  while  it  admitted  that  the  privi¬ 
lege  of  the  clergy  ought  not  to  avail  them  in  cases  of 
treason,  complained  that  for  offences  of  other  sorts  they 
were  sometimes  hanged  like  laymen,  and  petitioned  that 
the  king  would  order  them,  if  convicted  in  secular  courts, 
to  be  made  over  to  the  custody  of  the  bishops,  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  rights.1 

In  other  countries  also  the  assumed  immunities  of  the 
clergy  were  controlled  by  the  secular  power.  Thus  in 
\  i)  1-08  France,  when  Guichard,  bishop  of  Troyes, 
was  charged  with  having  poisoned  or  en¬ 
chanted  the  king  of  Navarre’s  mother,  he  was  long 
imprisoned  in  the  Louvre,  without  any  regard  to  the 
privileges  of  his  order.u  Even  as  to  the  monastic 
bodies,  the  French  kings  firmly  asserted  their  rights  of 
jurisdiction.  Thus  in  1350,  king  John,  having  received 
complaints  of  cruelties  exercised  on  delinquent  monks 
by  their  superiors,  ordered  that  redress  should  be  made  ; 
and  when  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  objected  to 
this,  as  an  invasion  of  the  pope’s  authority,  they  were 

9  Wilkins,  iii.  13-14.  juvamine.”  Vita  I.  Clem.  V.  ap.  Baluz. 

*  lb.  14,  244,  art.  55.  V.  P.  A.  i.  14. 

u  “  Nullius  priv'legii  fretus  vel  fultus 


Chap.  XI.  EPISCOPAL  POWER  LESSENED.  46 1 

told  that  they  must  either  submit  or  leave  the  kingdom.* 
Again,  in  1412  a  royal  commission  was  appointed  to 
inquire  into  the  affairs  of  the  black  monks  of  Languedoc  ; 
and  when  the  archbishops  of  Narbonne  and  Toulouse, 
with  a  council,  charged  the  commissioners  to  desist 
under  pain  of  excommunication,  the  king’s  council  re¬ 
fused  to  hear  the  representatives  of  the  two  archbishops, 
because  they  had  assembled  their  council  without  the 
royal  license/ 

(6.)  The  papal  judicature  was  so  extended  as  in  great 
measure  to  supersede  all  other  tribunals  of  the  church. 
The  Roman  curia  now  entertained  all  sorts  of  cases  in 
the  first  instance,  often  where  one  only  of  contending 
parties  wished  to  resort  to  it,  and  in  disregard  of  the 
protests  of  the  other  party ;  and  it  frequently  happened 
that  cases,  while  pending,  were  transferred  to  the  papal 
judgment  from  the  episcopal  courts  in  which  they  had 
been  commenced.2  By  this  the  authority  and  estimation 
of  the  bishops  was  much  diminished  ;  and  other  things, 
such  as  the  enormous  extension  of  the  system  of  dispen¬ 
sations  and  exemptions,  tended  to  the  same  effect.  By 
arrogating  to  themselves  the  functions  of  the  bishops,  the 
popes  reduced  these  to  what  a  writer  of  the  time  describes 
as  the  condition  of  mere  painted  images  ;a  and  many  of 


x  Bardin,  in  Hist,  de  Langued.  IV. 
Preuves,  29. 

y  lb.  32.  See  for  manner  in  which 
Lewis  I.  of  Hungary  settled  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  church  and  state  as  to  juris¬ 
diction,  Mailath,  ii.  9 6-7.  St.  Anto¬ 
ninus  complains  that  at  Florence,  in 
1345,  under  the  influence  of  the  mulci- 
tude,  a  law  was  made,  “in  clericos 
iniqua,  per  quam  omnibus  eorum  pri- 
vilegiis  derogabatur.”  (p.  352.)  In 
Switzerland  all  resort  to  foreign  tribu¬ 
nals,  whether  secular  or  spiritual,  was 
forbidden  to  the  clergy,  A.D.  137°; 
and  in  those  parts  of  Italy  which  were 


under  Ghibelline  rulers  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  courts  were  almost  suppressed. 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  17s. 

z  Planck,  v.  651-2 ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  181. 
There  were  many  remonstrances  from 
England  against  such  interference  with 
the  coilrse  of  judgment ;  e.  g.,  Rymer, 
ii.  968. 

a  De  modis  un.  et  ref.  Eccl.,  in  Ger- 
son,  ii.  174.  Cardinal  Allemand  said 
at  the  council  of  Basel — “  Quid  hodie 
erant  episcopi  nisi  umbrae  quaedam  ? 
quid  plus  illis  restabat  quam  baculus 
et  mitra  ?  ”  etc.  ^En.  Sylv.  de  Cone. 
Basil,  i.  27. 


462 


COMMENDAMS. 


Book  VIII. 


them,  finding  themselves  without  the  honour  and  the  in¬ 
fluence  which  had  formerly  belonged  to  their  order,  were 
tempted  to  neglect  of  duty  and  to  selfish  enjoyment, 
while  they  endeavoured  to  indemnify  themselves  for  their 
degradation  by  behaving  tyrannically  to  their  clergy.b 

In  France  the  independence  of  the  bishops  appeared 
to  have  been  secured  by  the  pragmatic  sanction  of  St. 
Lewis ;  but  it  was  again  sacrificed  by  the  concordat  of 
Constance,  and  the  authority  which  they  had  seemed 
likely  to  acquire,  by  means  of  the  councils  in  which  they 
sat  in  judgment  on  popes,  was  frustrated  by  the  policy 
of  the  popes,  who  contrived  to  entangle  them  in  differ¬ 
ences  with  their  sovereigns.0 

(7.)  The  popes,  too,  had  in  their  hands  the  power  of 
reconciling  the  bishops  to  much  loss  of  dignity  by  means 
of  the  system  of  commendams.d  The  practice  of  “  com¬ 
mending  ”  vacant  preferments — such  as  the  headship  of 
a  monastery — instead  of  filling  them  up  with  proper  in¬ 
cumbents,  was  as  old  as  the  eighth  or  ninth  century, e  but 
had  then  been  forcibly  exercised  by  secular  princes  in 
favour  of  laymen  or  others,  and  had  been  reprobated  by 
the  ecclesiastical  authorities.*  At  a  later  time,  however, 
it  came  to  be  largely  used  by  popes,  who  found  in  it  a 
means  of  attaching  to  their  interest  persons  who  might 
otherwise  have  been  inclined  to  insubordination.  At 
first,  vacant  preferments,  if  there  were  some  hindrance  to 
filling  them  up  immediately,  were  commended  to  the  care 
of  some  competent  person,  and  the  abuse  of  the  system 
was  guarded  against  by  limitations  of  the  time  for  which 
such  commendations  might  be  granted.g  But  afterwards 
such  restrictions  were  set  aside,  so  that  the  commendation 
might  be  for  the  whole  lifetime  of  the  receiver  ;  nor  were 


b  Planck,  v.  631-4  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
182-3.  0  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  57-8. 

d  Planck,  v.  629. 

e  See  vol.  iii.  p.  222 ;  iv.  p.  165 ; 


Quart.  Rev.  cx.  68.  f  Planck,  v.  617 
s  lb.  618-19;  Herzog,  art. Commende. 
Thus  Gregory  X.  in  1274,  limited  them 
to  six  months.  VI.  Decret.  I.  vl  15. 


Chap.  XI. 


COMMENDAMS. 


4^3 


the  popes  bound  by  any  limits  as  to  the  number  of  the 
preferments  which  might  thus  be  accumulated  on  a  single 
person.  If  an  archbishop  complained  of  the  cost  of  his 
pall,  or  a  bishop  of  the  amount  of  his  first-fruits,  they 
might  be  indemnified  at  the  expense  of  the  church  by 
receiving  the  commendation  of  wealthy  sees  or  abbacies. 
In  the  case  of  some  of  the  more  important  prelates,  this 
system  was  carried  to  a  great  excess.  Thus  Baldwin  of 
Treves  held  at  different  times  the  sees  of  Spires  and 
Worms  in  commendam  with  his  archbishoprick,  and  for 
nine  years  (during  a  part  of  which  he  was  also  adminis¬ 
trator  of  Worms)  even  the  archbishoprick  of  Mentz,  the 
seat  ot  the  German  primacy,  was  commended  to  him.h 
The  cardinals  held  much  preferment  in  this  way,  and  in 
some  cases  even  women  received  the  commendation  of 


benefices.1 

Clement  V.,  who  had  used  this  system  largely,  was 
touched  with  compunction  in  a  dangerous 

.  .  r  i  1  11  A-D-  13 07. 

illness,  and  on  his  recovery  put  forth  a  bull 
revoking  and  annulling  all  such  grants  ;k  but  it  would 
seem,  from  the  complaints  of  the  younger  Durandus 1  and 
of  another  bishop,  at  the  time  of  the  council  of  Vienne, 
that  little  practical  amendment  followed.™  John  XXII. 
endeavoured,  by  his  bull  Execrabilis  (a.d.  1318),  to 
check  the  practice  of  commendation  and  other  abuses 
of  pluralities  ;11  but  later  popes  again  had  recourse  to  it, 


h  Gesta  Bald,  in  Baluz.  Miscell.  i. 
321-2 ;  Potthast,  ii.  428 ;  Planck,  v. 
630. 

*  Giesel.  II.  iii.  148. 
k  Raynald.  1307.  28;  Thomassin,  vi. 
107. 

1  See  above,  p.  63. 
m  Planck,  v.  624 ;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
106.  See  Thomassin,  1.  II.  iii.  20. 

n  Extra v.  tit.  iii.  No  one,  except 
cardinals  and  royal  persons,  was  to 
have  more  than  one  benefice  with  cure 
of  souls  in  addition  to  one  without 


cure ;  “  Cum,”  says  the  Lanercost 
chronicler,  “ante  illud  tempus  omnis 
rector  seu  persona  ecclesise  tot  ecclesias 
posset  admittere  et  retinere  quot  di- 
versi  patroni  sibi  vellent  conferre.” 
(235.)  The  younger  Durandus,  some 
years  before  the  date  of  this  bull,  tel  s 
a  story  of  a  chancellor  of  Paris  who 
refused  to  give  up  any  of  his  pluralities, 
although  his  bishop  entreated  him, 
when  on  his  death-bed,  to  do  so.  But 
as  the  bishop  was  saying  a  De  Profun - 
dis  for  him  near  his  grave,  the  chan- 


4<H 


STATE  OF  THE  CLERGY. 


Book  VIII. 


and  it  furnished  the  means  of  evading  various  laws  of 
the  church.  Thus  a  benefice  with  cure  of  souls  might 
be  bestowed  in  comme?ida?ti  on  a  person  who  would 
have  been  incapable  of  holding  it  as  incumbent — a 
boy,  for  example,  or  one  who  had  not  been  ordained  to 
the  priesthood.0  Or  by  the  union  of  benefices  the  laws 
against  pluralities  might  be  defeated — the  holder  being 
presented  to  one  as  the  “  principal  benefice,”  and  the 
others  being  “ commended ”  to  him  with  it.  Ora  cure  of 
souls  was  united  with  a  sinecure,  and,  when  the  sinecure 
was  bestowed  on  a  person  unqualified  for  a  charge  of 
souls,  the  cure  followed  it  by  virtue  of  the  union. p 

In  consequence  of  such  practices,  chiefly,  the  inequality 
between  different  grades  of  the  clergy  now  became  espe¬ 
cially  glaring.  Theodoric  of  Niem  tells  us  that,  while 
some  of  them  were  greater  than  secular  princes,  others 
were  in  a  condition  more  abject  than  that  of  the  common 
people.^  And  Nicolas  of  Clemanges  renews  the  old  com¬ 
plaint  of  Agobard,1-  that  members  of  the  priesthood  are 
employed  in  low  offices  under  secular  masters — as  cooks, 
butlers,  stewards,  as  waiters  at  table  or  as  ladies’  footmen, 
“  not  to  say  worse.”8 

(8.)  There  was  a  general  disposition  to  put  some  re¬ 
straint  on  the  increase  of  ecclesiastical  wealth.  In  Eng¬ 
land  the  statutes  of  mortmain  were  directed  to  this  pur¬ 
pose,  as  we  have  seen  in  an  earlier  period.1  In  Germany 
there  were  various  local  enactments — as  that  clergymen 


cellor  appeared,  in  miserable  plight, 
and  declared  that  he  had  been  damned 
on  account  of  his  pluralities,  so  that 
prayer  for  him  was  unavailing.  (De 
Modo  celeb.  Concil.  Gen.  p.  ii.  tit  21, 
p.  109.)  The  reforms  of  John  XXII. 
were  not  altogether  disinterested  ;  for 
the  preferments  which  should  become 
vacant  by  the  operation  of  his  bull 
were  to  be  reserved  to  his  own  dis¬ 
posal ;  and  against  this  Edward  II. 


remonstrated.  Rymer,  ii.  354.  See 
the  bull  of  Urban  V.  against  pluralities, 
A.  D.  1365,  in  Wilk.  iii.  62. 

0  Planck,  v.  620-2. 

P  lb.  627. 

1  Nemus  Unionis,  1.  iii.  p.  223  ;  Gie- 
sel.  II.  iii,  183. 

r  See  vol.  iii.  p.  195. 
s  “  Nolo  turpiora  dicere.”  DePrae- 
sulibus  Simoniacis,  p.  165. 

‘  Vol.  vi.  p.  419;  15  Ric.  II.  c.  5.  etc. 


Chap.  XI. 


ATTACKS  ON  THEIR  WEALTH. 


465 


should  not  acquire  real  property,  or  should  hold  it  only 
for  a  limited  time;  and  that  they  should  not  be  employed 
to  draw  up  wills,  as  it  was  supposed  that  they  might  un¬ 
duly  influence  the  minds  of  the  testators."  At  Paderborn 
it  was  decreed  in  1379  that  any  citizen  who  at  a  funeral 
should  offer  more  than  the  price  of  one  mass  should  be 
fined — an  order  which  seems  to  imply  not  only  a  wish  to 
limit  the  receipts  of  the  clergy,  but  a  doubt  of  the  efficacy 
of  such  services  for  the  benefit  of  departed  souls. x 

But  the  attacks  on  the  wealth  of  the  clergy  were  not 
limited  to  such  measures  as  these.  Marsilius  of  Padua 
and  William  of  Ockham,  whose  rigour  of  principle  was 
exasperated  by  their  feeling  that,  as  imperialists,  they  had 
the  great  force  of  the  clergy  against  them,  proposed  to 
take  away  all  endowments ;  and  the  principle  of  such  en¬ 
dowments  was  afterwards  denounced  by  Wyclif  and  Hus. 
The  wealth  of  the  English  hierarchy,  contrasting  strongly 
with  Wyclif’s  ideal,  became  a  mark  for  frequent  attacks. 
When  Henry  IV.,  in  1404,  was  urgently  in  want  of  money, 
the  house  of  commons  represented  to  him  that  the  clergy 
held  a  third  part  of  the  English  soil,  and  yet  lived  in  idle¬ 
ness  while  the  laity  shed  their  blood  for  their  country.  On 
this,  archbishop  Arundel  threw  himself  at  the  king’s  feet, 
and  reminded  him  that  the  clergy  had  given  a  tenth  for  the 
national  service  oftener  than  the  laity  had  given  a  fifteenth 
that  they  contributed  the  services  of  their  retainers  to  the 
royal  forces,  and  that,  instead  of  being  idle,  they  also  con¬ 
tributed  their  pray  ers.  By  this  speech  the  attack  was  de¬ 
feated;  and  the  king  assured  the  clergy  that  he  intended  to 
leave  the  church  in  as  good  a  condition  as  he  had  found  it, 
or  better/  Two  years  later,  a  scheme  of  church-reform 
was  drawn  up,  setting  forth  on  one  hand  the  amount  of  land 
and  revenues  held  by  the  clergy,  and  on  the  other  hand 

u  Giesel.  II.  Iii.  1702.  y  Walsingh.  ii.  265-73.  See  Hallam, 

x  lb.  172.  49* 

VOL.  VII. 


30 


466 


PREFERMENT  OF  NOBLES. 


Book  VIII. 


the  number  of  earls,  knights,  esquires,  and  hospitals  that 
might  be  maintained  out  of  these  resources,  with  a  pro¬ 
posal  for  reducing  the  clergy  to  such  a  number  as  might 
be  necessary  for  the  performance  of  their  functions.  But 
again  the  king  took  part  with  the  clergy,  and  the  attack 
was  unsuccessful.2 

(9.)  The  nobles  had  in  earlier  times  endeavoured  to 
get  exclusive  possession  of  the  preferment  in  some  chap¬ 
ters,  and  such  attempts  were  continually  carried  furthers 
Thus,  at  Strasburg,  no  one  was  admissible  to  a  canonry 
unless  he  could  show  sixteen  quarterings  of  nobility  ;  and, 
although  Gregory  IX.  had  reprobated  this  system, b  other 
popes  allowed  it,  and  may  have  found  their  account  in 
thus  securing  the  support  of  the  nobles  who  benefited 
by  it.c  The  claim  of  high  birth,  indeed,  was  commonly 
admitted,  even  by  reforming  churchmen,  as  a  ground  for 
preferment  ;d  and  an  English  satirist,  while  complaining 
that  persons  of  low  origin  are  advanced  to  ecclesiastical 
dignities  which  lift  them  above  the  secular  nobles,  adds 
that  these  ought  rather  to  secure  such  preferments  for 
their  own  kindred  or  for  gentlemen.e  The  canonries 
being  regarded  merely  as  sources  of  income,  were  very 
commonly  held  by  persons  who  declined  to  proceed 
beyond  the  minor  orders  of  the  ministry,  and  who  were 
utterly  unlearned.1  In  order  to  guard  against  such  evils, 
Clement  V.  decreed  that  no  one  below  the  order  of  sub- 


z  Walsingh.  ii.  282-3  '<  Lingard,  iii. 
473.  See  the  opening  of  Shakespeare’s 
‘  Henry  V.' 

a  Giesel.  II.  iii.  185.  Seevol.  v.  382. 
b  See  vol.  vi.  411. 
c  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  184. 
d  Thus,  cardinal  Zabarella  proposes 
“  ut  nulli  nisi  graduati  vel  nobiles 
magna  nobilitate  ad  ecclesias  cathe- 
drales  admittantur.”  (V.  d.  Hardt,  i. 
524.)  So  another  cardinal  would  have 
regard  “  secundum  quod  videbitur 
expedite,”  to  nobility  in  appointments 


to  bishopricks  and  other  dignities. 
(Ib.  557.)  And  Martin  V.,  in  his  plan 
of  reform  (see  p.  399),  while  laying 
down  that  future  cardinals  shall  in 
general  be  men  of  high  personal  quali¬ 
fications,  adds,  “  Praeter  admodum 
paucos,  qui  de  stirpe  regia  vel  ducali 
vel  magni  principis  oriundi  existant,  in 
quibus  competens  litteratura  sufficiat.” 
Ib.  1021. 

*  The  Ploughman’s  Creed,  vv.  1483, 
seqq. 

4  Marsilius,  Defensor  Pacis,  ii.  24. 


Chap.  XI. 


COMPLAINTS  AGAINST  THE  CLERGY. 


/  C\  * 


deacon  should  have  a  voice  in  a  chapter,  and  that  those 
who  were  promoted  to  canonries  should  enter  into  the 
“holy”  orders  within  a  year,  under  certain  penalties." 
And  a  council  at  Lucerne,  in  1351,  ordered  that  no  one 
ignorant  of  grammar  should  be  appointed  to  such  prefer¬ 
ments.1*  The  reforming  committee  of  the  council  of  Con¬ 
stance  described  the  canons  who  owed  their  position  to 
their  birth  as  being  rather  like  soldiers  than  ecclesiastics, 
and  ordered  that  academic  doctors  should  be  mixed 
with  them  in  certain  proportions  p  and  it  did  away  with 
another  abuse  by  ordering  that  no  one  under  eighteen 
years  of  age  should  be  capable  of  such  preferments 
(10.)  Throughout  this  time  there  are  continual  outcries 
as  to  the  faults  of  the  clergy,  partly  continued  from  former 
ages,  and  partly  provoked  by  the  development  of  new 
evils.  In  all  grades  there  are  complaints  of  rapacity, 
luxury,  and  neglect  of  duty,  while  it  is  said  that  many 
of  the  clergy  devote  themselves  to  secular  affairs,  and 
become  altogether  laic  in  their  habits.1  The  cardinals 
are  taxed  with  extravagant  pride,  which  regards  not  only 
bishops  (whom  they  commonly  styled  episcopelli ),  but  pri¬ 
mates  and  patriarchs,  with  contempt ;  their  life  and  that 
of  their  households  is  described  as  unedifying,  and  they 
are  accused  of  utterly  neglecting  the  monasteries  and  other 
preferments  which  they  hold  in  plurality — sometimes  even 
to  the  number  of  400  or  500.111  The  bishops  are  charged 


e  Clementin.  I.  tit.  vi.  c.  2.  See  too 
Cone.  Panormit.  a.d.  1388,  in  Mansi, 
xxvi.  751. 
h  lb.  257. 

1  V.  cl.  Hardt,  i.  639,  695-8. 

*  lb.  698. 

1  E.g,  Theod.  Vrie,  ib.  60,  seqq. ; 
Theobald.,  Publica  Conquestio,  ib.  p. 
xix. ;  Piers  Ploughman’s  Vision,  165, 
seqq.,  7131,  seqq.,  8037,  seqq.,  14360, 
seqq.  ;  De  Ruina  Eccl.  2-3  (V.  d. 
Hardt,  I.  iii.);  Henr.  de  Hassia,  Con¬ 


silium  Pacis,  c.  17,  in  Gerson,  ii.  837-9  > 
Jac.  de  Paradiso,  De  Septem  Statibus 
Ecclesiae,  in  Fascic.  Rer.  Exp.  et 
Fug.  ii.  105.  There  is-  an  amusing 
description  of  clerical  dandyism  in 
Abp.  Stratford’s  Constitutions,  a.d. 
1342  (Wilkins,  ii.  703)  ;  see  too  Thores- 
by,  abp.  of  York,  ib.  iii.  71. 

ra  De  Ruina  Eccl.  13-17.  Henry  of 
Hesse  speaks  of  cases  in  which  a  sin¬ 
gle  person  held  200  or  300  benefices. 
Cons.  Pacis,  c.  17  (Gerson,  t.  ii.). 


468 


COMPLAINTS  AGAINST 


Look  VIII. 


with  want  of  learning  and  of  other  qualifications  for  their 
office,  with  non-residence,  secularity,  simony ;  it  is  said  that 
for  the  sake  of  money  they  bestow  orders  on  a  multitude 
of  men  who  are  utterly  illiterate,  lax  in  their  habits,  and 
unfit  for  the  sacred  ministry  ;  and  if  the  text  “  Freely 
ye  have  received,  freely  give,”  be  quoted  to  them,  their 
reply  is  that  they  had  not  received  freely."  It  is  said  that 
those  of  Germany  devolved  their  work  on  titular  bishops, 
who  paid  for  their  appointments  and  “gnawed”  the  clergy 
and  people  by  their  exactions.  Similar  complaints  are 
made  of  the  archdeacons ;  and  the  canons  are  described 
as  worthy  of  their  bishops — as  sunk  in  voluptuousness  and 
vice.0  There  are,  as  before,  decrees  of  councils  against 
the  fighting  and  hunting  propensities  of  the  clergy,?  against 
indecencies  in  the  celebration  of  the  Divine  offices  ;q 
prohibitions  of  secular  occupations1-  and  diversions;8  with 
unsavoury  evidence  as  to  the  results  of  enforcing  celibacy,4 


n  De  Ruina  Eccl.  20-8;  Nic.  de  Cle- 
mang.  de  Prsesul.  Simoniacis,  p.  165. 

0  Th.  Niem,  de  Necessitate  Reform., 
in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  290.  See  above, 
p.  342  ;  and  as  to  archdeacons,  Abp. 
Stratford’s  Constitutions,  a.d.  1341,  cc. 
1-2  ;  A.D.  1342,  cc.  3,  7,  8  (Wilkins,  ii.). 

P  Thus  it  is  related  that  John  Schad- 
land,  a  Dominican,  on  being  appointed 
by  Gregory  XI.  to  the  see  of  Hilde- 
sheim,  without  consulting  the  chapter 
(a.d.  1362),  asked  where  was  the  library 
which  his  predecessors  had  used.  The 
officials  took  him  into  an  armoury, 
where  they  showed  him  all  sorts  of 
arms,  and  told  him  that  these  were 
the  books  which  had  been  used  by 
former  bishops,  and  which  were  still 
necessary  for  the  defence  of  the  church’s 
property.  After  two  years,  the  bishop 
was  able  to  obtain  a  translation  from 
this  uncongenial  sphere  to  Augsburg. 
(Chron.  Hildesh.  in  Leibnitz,  ii.  799  ; 
Quet.-Echard,  i.  672.)  A  later  bishop 
of  Hildesheim,  Gerhard,  in  a  battle 
against  the  dukes  of  Brunswick,  who 


had  for  allies  the  archbishop  of  Mag¬ 
deburg  and  the  bishop  of  Halberstadt, 
got  the  victory  over  their  superior  force 
by  vowing  a  gilt  roof  to  St.  Mary’s 
church — “  Eligeret  ergo  D.  Virgo  utro 
mallet,  stramineone  an  aureo,  tecto 
ornari,” — and  he  applied  the  ransom  of 
the  dukes  to  the  fulfilment  of  his  vow. 
Leibn.  ii.  800. 

1  Eg.,  Clementin.  1.  III.  tit.  iv.  c.  x. 

r  Thus  a  council  at  Bologna,  a.d. 
1317,  enacts  that  the  clergy  shall  not 
sell  wine  or  other  illicit  articles  ;  that 
they  shall  not  keep  or  haunt  taverns  ; 
nor  shall  they  be  “bastaxii,  mimi,  his- 
triones  vel  lenones,  carbonerii  seu  for- 
nerii,  cursarii  seu  piratae,  nisi  forsan 
contra  infideles,  vel  sagiones  curiae 
saecularis  non  existant,  vel  se  guerris 
voluntarie  immisceant,  nisi  pro  defen- 
sione  sua  vel  ecclesiae  ”  (cc.  4,  7). 
Cf.  Clementin.  III.  tit.  i.  c.  1  ;  Cone. 
Avenion.  a.d.  1337,  c.  38. 

*  Eg.,  Cone.  Tarracon.  a.d.  1332,  c. 
8  (Mansi,  xxv.). 

1  See  Theiner,  ii,  591,  seqq.;  Giesel. 


Chap.  XI. 


THE  CLERGY. 


469 


and  continued  re-enactments  of  the  canons  which  had 
been  found  so  ineffectual  for  good.  Some  of  the  more 
enlightened  divines,  such  as  Zabarella,  began  to  suggest 
the  expediency  of  removing  the  restrictions  on  marriage  ;u 
but  even  Gerson  was  strongly  against  this*  and  the  old 
laws,  with  the  evils  which  resulted  from  them,  continued.*1 


II.  iii.  188-91.  The  bishops  usually, 
for  an  annual  payment,  licensed  the 
keeping  of  concubines,  “  quae  vulgata 
jam  appellatione  vaccce  annuales  di- 
cuntur.”  (N.  de  Clemang.  de  Praesul. 
Simoniacis,  162  ;  cf.  De  Ruina  Eccl. 
c.  22.)  “Denique  laici  usque  adeo 
persuasum  habent  nullos  coelibes  esse, 
ut  in  plerisque  parochiis  non  aliter 
velint  presbyterum  tolerare  nisi  con- 
cubinam  habeat,  quo  vel  sic  suis  sit 
consultum  uxoribus,  quae  ne  sic  quidem 
usquequaque  sint  extra  periculum.” 
(De  Praesul.  Sim.  165.)  A  council  at 
Padua,  in  1339,  decreed  that  no  clerk 
should  take  his  son  about  with  him, 
nor  employ  him  as  an  assistant  in  re¬ 
ligious  functions,  “  ne  ipsius  inconti- 
nentiae  vitium  ipso  filio  attestante  omni¬ 
bus  revelaret.”  (c.  4.)  Theodoric  of 
Niem  says  that  in  Ireland  and  Norway 
(two  countries  so  remote  from  each 
other  and  so  unlike  that  we  can  hardly 
suppose  this  connexion  of  them  to  be 
correct),  the  bishops  were  accustomed 
to  take  their  concubines  with  them  on 
their  rounds  of  visitation,  in  order  that 
these  women  might  fare  sumptuously 
at  the  cost  of  the  clergy  who  were 
visited,  might  get  gifts  from  them,  see 
their  amasitz ,  and  guard  the  bishop 
against  the  chance  of  being  ensnared 
by  the  superior  beauty  of  the  orna¬ 
ments  of  the  parsonage.  Theodoric 
adds  that  any  priest  who  did  not  keep 
a  focctria  was  bound  to  pay  procura¬ 
tions  to  the  bishop,  as  being  a  “  pre¬ 
varicator  paternarum  traditionum  ” ; 
that  the  wives  of  priests  took  prece¬ 
dence  of  the  wives  of  knights ;  and 
that  the  same  sort  of  laxity  was  also 
common  in  Germany,  Spain,  and  Por¬ 


tugal.  (De  Schism,  iv.  35.)  The  sons 
of  bishops  in  Norway  were  regarded 
as  among  “  the  first  and  most  respected 
men  of  the  kingdom.”  (Miinier,  ii. 
126.)  In  Chaucer,  the  miller’s  wife  of 
Trumpington  is  an  important  personage 
in  her  way,  because  she  is  a  parson’s 
daughter.  (The  Reve’s  Tale,  3940, 
seqq.  See  Lea  on  Sacerdotal  Celib.. 
349,  Philadelphia,  1867.)  At  the  coun¬ 
cil  of  Constance,  Theobald,  a  doctor 
of  divinity,  says,  “  Versum  est  in  pro- 
verbium  quod  prselati  tot  nutriunt  mere- 
trices  quot  familiares.”  (V.  d.  Hardt, 
i.  909.)  John  of  Varennes  speaks  of 
ecclesiastics  “  quorum  vita  non  est 
hominum  etiam  laicorum,  sed  bruto- 
rum  ;  quorum  nonnulli  in  ecclesiis  suis 
coram  populo  suo  palam  ssepius  dixe- 
runt,  et  alibi  publice,  et  in  taberna 
quoque,  quod  pro  homine  vivente  con- 
cubinas  suas  non  permitterent  abire  ; 
sed  si  satis  de  una  non  haberent,  duas 
aut  tres  reciperent,  aut  omnes  paro- 
chianas  suas,  a  prima  usque  ad  ulti- 
mam,  haberent.”  Ap.  Gerson,  i.  918. 
u  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  85. 
x  Dialogus  Sophiae  et  Naturae  super 
coelibatu  sive  castitate  Ecclesiasticorum 
(a.d.  1413)  Opp.  ii.  617,  seqq.  At  the 
council  of  Constance,  it  was  proposed 
that,  whereas  some  hold  that  the  minis¬ 
trations  of  notorious  concubinaries  may 
be  attended,  unless  denounced  by  the 
bishop,  and  others  consider  notoriety 
to  be  a  sufficient  objection,  the  former 
opinion  should  be  held  as  safer  than  the 
other,  and  that  notice  should  be  re¬ 
quired  in  order  to  justify  the  with¬ 
drawal  from  the  communion  of  such 
priests.  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  636 ;  Schwab, 
957- 


47° 


DESIRE  OE  REFORM. 


Cook  VIII. 


Notwithstanding  the  impulse  given  to  learning  by  the 
universities,  the  great  mass  of  the  clergy  was  still  grossly 
ignorant, JT  and  this  is  a  frequent  subject  of  complaint.2 
Cardinal  d’Ailly  suggested  at  the  council  of  Constance 
that,  m  order  to  remedy  in  some  degree  the  ignorance 
which  was  common  among  the  priesthood,  some  plain 
instructions  as  to  faith  and  morals,  the  sacraments,  and 
the  mode  of  confession,  should  be  drawn  up  both  in 
Latin  and  in  the  vernacular  languages.21 

In  all  varieties  of  shapes  a  desire  for  reform  was  ex¬ 
pressed — in  the  treatises  of  such  theologians  as  Gerson, 
d’Ailly,  and  Nicolas  of  Clemanges  ;  in  the  writings  of 
those  Franciscans,  such  as  William  of  Ockham,  who  were 
driven  into  the  imperial  interest  by  the  contrast  between 
their  ideas  of  apostolical  simplicity  and  the  corruptions 
of  the  court  of  Avignon  ;  in  the  solemn  verse  of  Dante, 
and  in  the  indignant  letters  of  Petrarch ;  in  popular 
poems,  stories,  and  satires,  such  as  the  ‘  Songe  du 
Vergier,’  in  France,  the  free  tales  of  Boccaccio, b  the 


y  “Non  tantum  a  studiis  aut  schola, 
sed  ab  aratro  etiam  et  servilibus  arti- 
bus,  ad  parochias  regendas,  csetera- 
que  beneficia,  passim  proficiscebantur. 
Qui  haud  plus  Latinae  linguae  quam 
Arabicae  intelligerent,  imo,  qui  et  nihil 
legere,  et,  quod  referre  pudor,  alpha 
vix  nossent  a  beth'a  discernere.”  De 
Corrupto  Eccl.  Statu,  7  (cf.  24)  in  V. 
d.  Hardt,  I.  iii. ;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  186-7. 

z  Louis  de  Beaumont,  a  Frenchman, 
whose  appointment  to  the  see  of  Dur¬ 
ham  has  been  already  mentioned  (p. 
260),  was  unable  at  his  consecration, 
with  all  the  aids  of  tutoring  and  prompt¬ 
ing,  to  read  or  to  pronounce  the  harder 
words  of  the  Latin  formulary. —  “  Lati- 
num  non  intelligens,  sed  cum  difficul- 
tate  pronuncians.  Unde  cum  in  con- 
secratione  sua  profiteri  debuit,  quam  vis 
per  multos  dies  ante  instructorem  habu- 
isset,  legere  nescivit ;  et  cum  auricu- 
lantibus  aliis  cum  difficultate  ad  illud 
verbum  Aletropoliticce  pervenisset,  et 


diu  anhelans  pronunciare  non  posset, 
dixit  in  Gallico  Seit  pur  dite.  Stupe- 
bant  omnes  circumstantes,  dolentes 
talem  in  episcopum  consecrandum. 
Et  enm  similiter  celebraret  ordines, 
nec  illud  verbum  in  cenigmate  pro- 
ferre  posset,  dixit  circumstantibus. 
Par  Seynt  Lcnvys  il  ne  fut pas  curteis 
qui  cesfe  parole  ici  esent."  Rob.  de 
Graystanes,  in  Angl.  Sac.  i.  761. 

a  De  Reform.  Eccles.  ap.  Gerson,  ii. 
914.  At  the  council  of  Basel,  an  audi¬ 
tor  of  the  papal  palace  said  that  many 
monks  were  ordained  to  the  priesthood 
“  non  propter  praedicationis  officium, 
sed  devotionem  et  sacrificii  multiplica- 
tionem  ;  ideo  secundum  S.  Thomam 
non  ita  rigide  debent  in  scientia  ex- 
aminari  sicut  sacerdotes  promover.di 
ad  curam  animarum.”  Petr.  Zata- 
censis,  in  Monum.  Cone.  Basel,  i.  296. 

b  E-g-i  the  second  novel  of  the  first 
decade  of  the  Decameron. 


Chap.  XI. 


NEW  ORDERS. 


47  1 


downright  invectives  of  Piers  the  Ploughman,  and  the 
living  pictures  of  Chaucer;  in  the  critical  spirit  which 
grew  up  within  the  universities  ;  in  the  teaching  of  Wyclif, 
Hus,  and  their  followers  ;  in  the  utterances  of  men  and 
women  whose  sanctity  was  believed  to  be  accompanied 
by  the  gift  of  prophecy.0  The  cry  for  a  general  council, 
which  in  former  times  had  been  raised  only  in  the  way  of 
appeal  from  the  papacy  by  its  opponents,  was  now  taken 
up  by  the  truest  members  of  the  church,  not  only  with  a 
view  to  ending  the  schism  which  had  long  distracted 
western  Christendom,  but  in  order  to  that  reformation 
of  which  the  necessity  was  felt  by  all  but  those  whose 
interest  was  bound  up  with  the  corruptions  of  the 
existing  system.*1  Yet  even  among  the  many  who 
sincerely  wished  for  reform,  there  were  some  who  be¬ 
lieved  that  it  would  come  better  from  the  pope  than  from 
a  council ;  and  the  hopes  which  had  been  fixed  on  the 
council  of  Constance  met  with  scanty  fulfilment  in  its 
decrees,  and  with  still  less  in  the  execution  of  them.e 


II.  Monasticism. 


(i.)  Although  during  this  time  a  feeling  was  often 
expressed  that  the  number  of  persons  professing  the 
monastic  life  was  already  too  great,  and  although  restric¬ 
tions  had  been  placed  on  the  indefinite  multiplication  of 
orders,1  some  new  communities  were  now  formed,  such 
as  the  Jesuates,g  the  congregation  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
of  Mount  Olivet,11  the  Alexians  or  Cellites,1  the  order 
of  St.  Bridget  of  Sweden, k  the  brotherhood  of  Canons - 


c  Dollinger  on  the  Prophetic  Spirit 
in  the  Christian  Era,  transl.  by  Plum¬ 
mer,  p.  69. 

d  See  Giesel.  II.  iii.  165. 
e  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  69. 
f  See  vol.  vi.  421. 

e  See  the  life  of  the  founder,  John 


Columbino,  in  Acta  SS.  Jul.  3i- 
h  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  158.  The  rule  is 
in  Holst en.  v.  1,  seqq.  See  Gobellinus 
(Pius  II.)  Comment.  483. 

1  Mosh.  ii.  680-9. 

k  See  above,  p.  194.  Holsten.  iii. 


100. 


47- 


decay  OF 


Kook  VIII 


regular  of  the  Common  Life  (founded  at  Deventer  by 
Gerard  Groot,  which  was  distinguished  by  the  care  which 
it  bestowed  on  the  education  of  students  intended  for 
the  priesthood1),  and  no  less  than  four  orders  which  took 
their  name  from  St.  Jerome.m  But  no  one  of  these 
societies  was  so  remarkable  either  for  its  constitulion 
or  for  the  extent  of  its  success  as  to  require  a  more 
particular  detail. 

(2.)  The  older  orders,  which  possessed  endowments, 
and  had  already  shown  themselves  affected  by  the 
temptations  of  wealth,  continued  to  decline  more  and 
more  from  the  rigour  of  their  original  profession.  Thus 
the  Benedictines  gave  themselves  up  to  enjoyment — 
resting  on  their  historical  fame,  and  careless  to  add  to 
the  long  list  of  popes  and  bishops  and  learned  men  who 
had  already  adorned  their  brotherhood.11  They  con¬ 
tributed  nothing  to  the  intellectual  movements  of  the 
time ;  the  few  writers  whom  the  society  now  produced, 
instead  of  attempting  to  distinguish  themselves  in  scho¬ 
lastic  philosophy,  were  content  to  employ  their  labour  on 
subjects  of  morality  or  practical  religion.0  Even  in  the 
mother-monastery  of  the  order,  the  great  and  venerable 
abbey  of  Monte  Cassino,  Boccaccio  is  said  to  have  found 
the  library  without  a  door,  herbage  growing  through 
the  windows,  the  books  thickly  covered  with  dust,  and 
the  volumes  cruelly  mutilated  by  the  monks,  who,  for  the 
sake  of  some  trifling  gain,  erased  the  writing  from  the 
leaves,  and  turned  them  into  little  books  of  devotion,11 
or  pared  away  the  ample  margins  and  made  them  into 
charms q  for  sale  to  women. r  And  when  Urban  V.,  on 


1  Rayn.  1384.  6  ;  Schrockh,  xxxiii. 
*6975;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  224,  seqq. ;  iv. 
303,  seqq.;  Ullmann,  ii.  59,  seqq.  The 
founder,  of  whom  there  is  a  life  by 
Thomas  of  Kempten,  was  born  in  1340,- 
and  died  in  1384. 

m  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  163  ;  Holsten.  tt. 


111.,  vi. 

n  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  90-1. 

0  Giesel.  II.  iii.  193. 

P  “  Psalteriolos.” 

<i  “  Brevia.”  See  Ducange,  i.  771, 
No.  11. 

r  Benven.  I  mol.  (a  pupil  of  Boc- 


Chap.  XI. 


MONASTIC  DISCIPLINE. 


473 


a  vacancy  in  the  headship,  attempted  to  introduce  a 
better  system  into  the  house,  he  found  himself  obliged 
to  borrow  a  fit  instrument  either  from  the  Camaldolites, 
or  from  the  reformed  brotherhood  of  Mount  Olivet.9 
Attempts  to  revive  the  Benedictine  rule  were  made  by 
Clement  V.,*  and  by  Benedict  XII.,  who  had  intended 
to  carry  his  reforms  into  other  monastic  orders  ;u  but 
Clement  VI.,  in  the  first  year  of  his  pontificate,  absolved 
them  from  the  penalties  which  had  been  imposed  by  his 
predecessor.* 

In  other  monastic  societies  a  similar  degeneracy  was 
noted.  Thus,  at  the  council  of  Pisa,  bishop  Hallam,  of 
Salisbury,  complained  of  the  bad  state  of  discipline  into 
which  the  English  Cistercians  had  fallen ;  and  the  abbot 
of  Citeaux,  unable  to  deny  the  fact,  alleged  the  schism 
of  the  church  as  the  cause  of  it.y  At  the  same  council, 
the  prior  of  Canterbury,  while  speaking  well  of  the 
Cluniacs  of  England,  described  those  of  some  French 
monasteries  which  he  had  visited  as  ignorant,  as  neglect¬ 
ful  of  discipline  and  of  the  monastic  habit,  as  having  no 
proper  vestments  even  for  use  in  the  services  of  the 
church,  and  as  being  altogether  more  like  mere  cultiva¬ 
tors  of  the  soil  than  monks ; z  and  from  many  quarters 
there  is  a  concurrence  of  evidence  as  to  a  general  decay 
of  discipline  and  learning,  with  an  increased  love  of 


caccio)  in  Murat.  Antiq.  Ital.  i.  1296. 
“Nunc  ergo,”  is  his  reflection,  “O 
vir  studiose,  frange  tibi  caput  pro  faci- 
endo  libros.” 

8  See  Baluz.  V.  P.  A.  1039. 

1  Clementin.  III.  x.  1. 
u  Seep.  127 ;  Mansi,  xxv.  205  ;  Baluz. 
Vitae  Pap.  Aven.  i.  205-6,  218 ;  Wilkins, 
ii.  525-621,  626,  656. 

x  Mansi,  xxv.  1155  ;  Baluz.  Miscell. 
iv.  27 ;  Vitae  Pap.  Aven.  i.  285. 
y  Martene,  Coll.  Ampl.  vii.  1117. 
z  lb.  11x8.  This  prior  was  Chillen- 
den,  whose  name  is  memorable  in  con¬ 


nexion  with  the  fabric  of  his  cathedral. 
“  Et  credatis,”  says  the  writer  who 
reports  him,  “quod  ipse  est  mirabilis 
persona  in  litteratura  et  moribus,  et 
magnae  experientiae  vir,  et  multuin 
zelat  rempublicam,  et  est  seque  bene 
reddituatus  sicut  unus  magnus  episco- 
pus.”  Burchard  of  Strasburg  says  of 
a  later  prior,  Sellyng  (a.d.  1487),  “Qui 
ex  privilegio  mitra  et  aliis  pontilicalibus 
insigniis  utitur,  ascenduntque  fructus 
prioratus  sui  ad  ducatos  7000  incirca 
ut  dicitur.”  Diarium  ed.  Gennarelli, 
89. 


474 


DECAY  OF  MONASTICiSM. 


Book  VIII. 


selfish  and  sensual  enjoyments.8  In  some  cases  the 
monastic  rule  which  forbade  individual  property  was 
openly  violated  ; b  the  common  life  of  the  refectory  and 
of  the  dormitory  fell  into  disuse  ;  the  monks  had  their 
separate  dwellings,  and  any  abbot  who  attempted  to 
bring  them  back  to  a  better  observance  of  their  rule 
was  met  by  violent  opposition.0  So  generally  did  laxity 
of  morals  prevail  among  the  monastic  communities,  that, 
according  to  the  writer  of  the  tract  “  On  the  corrupt 
State  of  the  Church/’  any  monk  who  led  a  correct  life 
became  the  laughing-stock  of  the  rest.d  The  same  writer 
describes  nunneries  as  abodes  of  the  grossest  profligacy  ;e 
he  adds  that,  on  account  of  the  degeneracy  of  the  monkish 
societies,  the  promise,  ‘‘All  these  things  shall  be  added 
unto  you/’  is  no  longer  fulfilled  to  them ; f  and  we  meet 


a  Thus  John  of  Trittenheim  says  in 
his  chronicle  of  Hirschau,  a.d.  1354, 
“  Erat  enim  tempus  illud  nebulosum  et 
ignorantiae  tenebris  plenum  ;  quando 
periit  non  solum  in  hoc  monasterio  Hir- 
saugiensi,  sed  in  omnibus  quoque  mo- 
nasteriis  nostri  ordinis  paene  in  tota 
Germania,  observantia  regularis ;  et 
monachi,  carnis  voluptatibus  dediti, 
studium  litterarum,  quod  majores  nos¬ 
tros  quondam  fecit  gloriosos,  penitus 
abjicientes,”  etc.  (Opera,  p.  227 ;  cf. 
230.)  At  Spanheim,  under  an  abbot 
elected  in  1374,  the  monks  began  to  sell 
the  precious  library,  as  well  as  relics, 
etc.  (Ib.  333  ;  cf.  Cone.  Provinc.  Mag- 
deb.  a.d.  1370,  etc.)  ./Eneas  Sylvius 
(Pius  II.)  says  that  the  Scottish  con¬ 
vent  at  Vienna,  by  giving  in  to  luxury, 
became  impoverished  to  such  a  degree 
that  only  eight  monks  could  be  main¬ 
tained,  instead  of  sixty.  The  property 
was  so  burdened  that  at  length  the  bell 
was  pledged  to  a  Jew,  whose  permis¬ 
sion  the  monks  were  obliged  to  buy  for 
every  stroke  that  was  sounded  on  it. 
Hist.  Frid.  in  Kollar,  ii.  36. 

b  Trithem.  237  ;  letter  of  John  Bel- 
hoiste,  a  Carthusian,  to  the  abbot  of  St. 


Laurence,  at  Lidge,  in  Martene,  Coll. 
Ampl.  i.  1556.  There  were  discussions 
about  property  at  the  council  of  Con¬ 
stance.  See  V.  d.  Hardt,  iii.  107, 
seqq. ;  Hefele,  vii.  367. 

c  Trithem.  p.  337. 

d  De  Corrupto  Eccl.  Statu,  c.  39  ; 

cf.  32. 

e  “  Ut  idem  sit  puellam  velare  quod 
et  publice  ad  scortandum  exponere  ” 
(c.  36).  Theodoric  of  Vrie  says  that  nuns 
were  sometimes  driven  by  the  tyranny 
of  bishops  to  prostitute  themselves  for 
the  means  of  living.  (V.  d.  Hardt,  i. 
75.)  As  to  the  habits  of  nuns  a  cen¬ 
tury  earlier,  a  decree  of  Clement  V.  at 
the  council  of  Vienne  may  be  quoted  : — 
“Moniales  ipsae  (quarum  nonnullas 
dolentes  audivimus  in  subscriptis  ex- 
cedere)  pannis  sericis,  variorum  foede- 
raturis,  sandalitiis,  comatis  et  cornutis 
crinibus,  scaccatis  et  virgatis  caputiolis 
non  utantur ;  non  choreas,  non  festa 
saecularium  prosequantur,  non  die 
noctuve  per  plateas  incedant,  aut 
voluptuosam  alias  vitam  ducant,”  etc. 
Clementin.  III.  x.  2.  See  Rulman 
Merswin,  ‘Of  the  Nine  Rocks,’  p.  381. 
f  C.  32. 


Chap.  XI. 


COMMENDATION. 


475 


with  strong  dissuasives  against  that  liberality  in  gifts  and 
bequests  on  which  the  monks  of  earlier  days  had  securely 
relied. g  In  England,  both  William  of  Wykeham,  bishop 
of  Winchester  in  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century,  and 
William  of  Wayneflete,  who  held  the  same  see  in  the 
middle  of  the  fifteenth,  allege  the  prevailing  degeneracy 
of  the  monks  as  their  motive  for  bestowing  their  wealth 
on  the  foundation  of  colleges  rather  than  of  convents.11 

(3.)  The  system  of  commendation  was  very  mischievous 
in  its  effects  on  monastic  discipline.  The  popes,  by  as¬ 
suming  the  power  to  bestow  abbacies  in  commendam  on 
their  cardinals,  deprived  many  monasteries  of  a  resident 
head.1  In  such  cases  the  revenues  were  diverted  from 
their  proper  objects  ;  the  number  of  monks  was  reduced 
to  a  very  few,  who,  instead  of  being  bound  to  the  obser¬ 
vance  of  their  rule,  received  a  small  stipend,  and  were 
allowed  to  spend  it  wherever  they  pleased ;  and  the  poor 
were  deprived  of  their  accustomed  alms.k  In  some  cases 
it  is  complained  that  a  monastery  was  burdened  with  an 
abbot  who  was  disqualified  by  his  previous  training — a 
secular  priest,  or  a  member  of  some  other  order ; 1  and 
charges  of  simony  are  as  rife  with  regard  to  monastic 
appointments  as  to  the  other  promotions  of  the  church.111 

(4.)  The  exemption  of  monasteries  from  episcopal 
control  was  continually  a  matter  of  complaint,  especially 
on  the  part  of  bishops,  who  represented  it  as  destructive 
of  ecclesiastical  discipline.11  The  subject  was  discussed 


e  E.g-.t  Piers  Ploughman’s  Vision, 
10255,  seqq. 

h  Lowth,  Life  of  Wykeham,  91  ; 
Chandler,  Life  of  Waynflete,  182.  In 
the  beginning  of  the  16th  century. 
Fox,  bishop  of  Winchester,  was  dis¬ 
suaded  by  Oldham,  of  Exeter,  from 
tounding  a  monastery,  but  on  a  some, 
what  different  ground — “plura  jamdu- 
dum  monachos  possidere,  quam  ut  diu 
retenturos  judicaret.”  He  therefore 


applied  his  money  to  the  foundation 
of  C.C.C.,  Oxford.  Godwin  de  Prsesul. 
235- 

1  Giesel.  II.  iii.  192. 
k  De  modis  uniendi,  etc.,  Eccl.,  Ger 
son,  Opera,  ii.  174 ;  Gesta  Abbat.  S 
Albani,  396. 

1  lb.  397;  Theod.  Niem,  De  necessi¬ 
tate  Reform,  etc.,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  287. 
m  lb.;  Theod.  Vrie,  ib.  60. 
n  Giesel.  II.  iii.  202-3. 


476 


MONASTIC  EXEMPTIONS. 


Book  VIII. 


at  the  council  of  Vienne,  where  it  was  argued  (somewhat 
unfairly  as  to  the  question  of  monasteries)  that  the  crimes 
which  were  then  imputed  to  the  templars  had  arisen  out 
of  their  exemption  from  episcopal  authority.0  To  this  an 
abbot  of  the  diocese  of  Senlis  replied,  that  exemptions 
were  necessary  for  the  protection  of  monks  against  the 
tyranny  of  the  bishops ;  and  he  commended  his  cause  to 
the  pope  by  dwelling  on  the  closeness  of  the  connexion 
between  the  exempt  monasteries  and  the  apostolic  see. 
Clement  was  not  disposed  to  embroil  himself  with  the 
monastic  orders ;  and  the  proposal  for  the  abolition  of 
exemptions,  which  had  been  made  by  Giles  Colonna, 
archbishop  of  Bourges,  was  defeated. p  At  the  council  of 
Constance  a  very  small  measure  of  reform  was  conceded 
by  Martin  V.,  in  abolishing  such  exemptions  as  had  been 
granted  since  the  beginning  of  the  schism.^ 

(5.)  The  mendicant  orders  did  not  escape  the  accusa¬ 
tions  which  were  directed  against  the  professors  of  the 
monastic  life  in  general.  We  meet  with  invectives  against 
them  as  luxurious r  and  assuming,  as  indulging  in  a  splen¬ 
dour  of  buildings  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  their 
rules ; 8  and  the  collisions  between  their  privileges  and 


0  Rayn.  1312.  24,  quoting  a  memoir 
by  a  bishop.  The  annalist  defends 
exemptions.  Vol.  iv.  p.  580. 

P  Rayn.  t.  iv.  567,  seqq.;  Hefele,  vi. 

463- 

•i  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  1029.  See  Richard 
ofUlverstone  against  exemptions,  Art. 
6,  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  xxvii. 

r  At  a  somewhat  later  time,  A.D. 
1475,  we  are  told  of  a  cook  who,  “  inter 
ollas  superbiens,  et  in  humili  ministerio 
vanae  gloriae  auram  captans,”  made 
too  luxurious  preparations  for  a  general 
chapter  of  the  Franciscans,  and  per¬ 
sisted  in  this,  notwithstanding  sharp 
rebukes  ;  whereupon  St.  James  of  the 
Mark  of  Ancona  cursed  him,  and  the 
cook  “  patJo  post  e  sodalitio  recedens, 
quod  vates  praedixit,  misere  periyit.” 


Wadding,  xiv.  127. 

8  See,  e.  g.,  Clementin.  V.  ix.  i.,  coll. 
322-4  ;  Wright,  Political  Songs,  255-6, 
267,  304,  seqq. ;  P.  Ploughman’s  Vision, 
84,  1 15,  etc.;  jEn.  Sylv.  in  Kollar,  ii. 
10 ;  Testamentum  fratris  Lope  de 
Salinis,  a.d.  1458,  in  Wadding,  xiii. 
86-115.  The  author  of  the  tract  ‘  De 
Ruina  Ecclesiae  ’  calls  them  wolves  in 
sheep’s  clothing,  and  is  very  severe  on 
them  (c.  22).  St.  Antoninus  says  that 
the  relaxation  in  the  discipline  of  the 
mendicants  was  commonly  supposed 
to  date  from  the  Black  Death,  by  which 
they  lost  many  of  their  most  exemplary 
members,  and  were  thrown  into  dis¬ 
order  which  the  authorities  were  after¬ 
wards  unable  to  remedy,  iii.  357. 


Chap.  XI. 


MENDICANT  ORDERS. 


477 


the  rights  of  the  parochial  clergy  were  incessant.  Council 
after  council,  and  other  authorities  in  various  countries, 
endeavoured,  but  seemingly  with  very  imperfect  success, 
to  limit  the  friars  in  their  claims  to  act  as  preachers  and 
confessors  everywhere,  and  to  bury  the  dead  without 
restriction  in  their  cemeteries,  and  thus  to  deprive  the 
secular  clergy  of  respect,  authority,  and  income.' t  Yet 
the  mendicants  continued  throughout  this  time  to  enjoy 
more  of  influence  and  of  reputation  than  any  of  the 
other  orders.  The  great  brotherhoods  of  St.  Dominic 
and  St.  Francis  were  stimulated  by  their  rivalry ;  but 
yet  a  division  of  objects  and  of  labour  was  in  a  manner 
established  between  them.  The  Dominicans  especially 
studied  scientific  theology  ;  their  Albert  and  their  Thomas 
were  regarded  as  next  in  authority  to  the  ancient  doctors 
of  the  church.  They  were  preachers  and  controversialists, 
were  much  employed  as  confessors  and  confidants  of 
princes,  and  had  the  inquisition  almost  entirely  in  their 
hands.  The  Franciscans,  although  they  too  had  their 
theologians,  who  were  unsurpassed  by  any  in  subtlety, 
were  on  the  whole  more  given  to  popular  teaching  and 
ministrations  ;  and  they  sought  by  all  means — even  by 
unscrupulous  impostures — to  gain  an  influence  over  the 
great  mass  of  the  people.11 

The  universities  of  Paris  and  of  Oxford  were  much 
disquieted  by  the  mendicants.  At  Paris,  in  1321,  John 
of  Poilly,  a  doctor  of  the  Sorbonne,  was  required  to  re- 


1  Raynald.  1304.  zx  ;  1384.  5  :  Cle- 
mentin.  III.  vii.  2  ;  Extrav.  III.  vi.  2; 
V.  vii.  1 ;  viii.  3  ;  Cone.  Prag.  a.d. 
1346,  in  Mansi,  xxv.  87,  102  ;  Cone. 
Prag.  A.D.  1355,  c.  36  ;  Cone.  Biterr. 
a.d.  1352,  c;  6;  Cone.  Saltzburg.  a.d. 
1386.  8  ;  Cone.  Vaurense,  a.d.  1368,  cc. 
63-5;  Langham,  A.D.  1368,  in  Wilkins, 
iii.  64  ;  Rebdorf,  in  Freher,  i.  418  ;  P. 
Ploughman’s  Vision,  6678,  seqq.  ;  De 
modis  uniendi  Ecclesiam,  etc,,  in  Ger- 


son,  ii.  175.  In  1258,  a  friar  was  made 
to  retract  for  having  taught  at  Oxford 
that  the  tithes  of  parishes  were  due  to 
the  mendicants,  rather  than  to  the 
rectors.  Munim.  Oxon  (Chron.  and 
Mem.)  i.  209. 

u  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  94-6;  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  204-5.  In  the  Ploughman’s  Creed, 
the  four  orders  of  friars  are  cleverly 
made  to  denounce  each  other’s  special 
faults.  Wright,  Pol.  Songs,  309,  seqq. 


478 


THE  MENDICANT  ORDERS. 


Book  VIII. 


tract  certain  opinions  which  he  had  uttered  against  the 
claim  of  the  friars  to  act  as  confessors.  He  held  that 
confession  to  a  friar  did  not  dispense  with  the  necessity 
of  again  confessing  the  same  sins  to  the  parish  priest ; 
that  so  long  as  the  canon  of  the  fourth  council  of  Late- 
ran  should  be  in  force,  the  pope  could  not  excuse  from 
the  duty  of  yearly  confession  to  the  parish  priest ;  nay, 
that  even  God  himself  could  not  do  so,  inasmuch  as  it 
would  involve  a  contradiction.  Against  these  opinions 
a  treatise  was  written  by  Peter  Paludanus,  a  Dominican, 
and  John  of  Poilly,  after  pope  John  himself  had  con¬ 
descended  to  argue  with  him,  submitted  to  retract  in  the 
presence  of  the  cardinals.* 

In  1409,  John  of  Gorel,  a  Franciscan,  had  gone  so 
far  as  to  deny  that  curates  had,  by  virtue  of  their  office, 
authority  to  preach,  confess,  administer  extreme  unction, 
to  bury,  and  to  receive  tithes — maintaining  that  the  work 
of  preaching  and  of  hearing  confession  belonged  more 
especially  to  the  friars.  He  was  compelled  by  the  Sor- 
bonne  to  subscribe  certain  propositions  of  a  directly 
contrary  tenor,  and  to  acknowledge  that  the  duties  in 
question  belonged  essentially  to  curates,  and  to  the  friars 
only  by  accidents 

Attempts  were  repeatedly  made  to  check  the  pre¬ 
tensions  of  the  mendicants.  Thus  the  continuator  of 
William  of  Nangis  relates  that  in  the  pontificate  of  Cle¬ 
ment  VI.  the  cardinals  and  other  prelates  urged  that  the 
mendicant  orders  should  be  abolished,  or 
ijS1-  at  jeas^  the  fdars  should  be  restrained 

from  invading  the  rights  of  the  parochial  clergy ;  but  that 

1  Extrav.  V.  iil.  2 ;  Mart.  Thes.  i.  revival  of  John  of  Poilly’s  opinions. 

1368;  D’Argentre,  i.  301;  Eymeric,  Rayn.  1447.  11. 

126,  250;  Chron.  Anon,  in  Bouquet,  *  D’Argentre,  I.  ii.  178.  Cf.  Gerson 

xxi.  153  ;  Monach.  Sandion.  iv.  298;  contra  Bullam  Mendicantium,  Opp.  ii. 

Raynald.  1321.  20,  seqq. ;  Mansi,  xxv.  436. 

576  7.  Eugenius  IV.  denounced  a 


Chap.  XI. 


FRANCISCAN  PARTIES. 


479 


the  pope  defeated  the  attempt  by  asking  them  whether, 
if  the  labours  of  the  mendicants  should  be  withdrawn, 
they  themselves  would  be  able  to  make  up  for  the  loss 
of  them.2  The  failure  of  Fitzralph,  bishop  of  Armagh, 
in  his  suit  against  the  mendicants,  a  few  years  later,  has 
already  been  noticed.8.  The  bull  of  the  Franciscan  pope, 
Alexander  V.,  in  1409,  which  appears  to  have  been 
solicited  by  his  order  in  consequence  of  the  condemna¬ 
tion  of  Gorel,b  the  opposition  of  the  university  of  Paris, 
and  the  revocation  of  the  bull  by  John  XXIII. — have 
also  come  before  us  in  the  course  of  the  history.0 

The  divisions  which  arose  among  the  Franciscans  out 
of  the  extreme  ideas  of  apostolical  poverty  maintained 
by  those  who  arrogated  to  themselves  the  name  of 
spirituals  have  already  fallen  under  our  noticed  In 
consequence  of  the  condemnation  which  John  XXII. 
had  passed  on  such  ideas,  the  spirituals  declared  him  to 
be  the  mystical  antichrist,  the  forerunner  of  the  greater 
antichrist ;  that  all  later  popes,  as  they  had  not  repu¬ 
diated  his  opinions,  were  heretics,  and  that  those  who 
adhered  to  them  could  not  be  saved.e  On  the  other 
hand,  Gerard,  the  master  who  was  appointed  on  the  de¬ 
privation  of  Michael  of  Cesena,  attempted  to  procure  an 
abrogation  of  the  founder’s  precept  that  the  Franciscans 
should  not  receive  gifts  of  money;  but  to  this  John 
sternly  refused  to  consent.1  In  consequence  of  these 
dissensions,  many  members  forsook  the  order,  and  joined 
the  parties  which  were  known  as  fraticelli,  beghards,  and 
the  like.  Many  of  them  ran  into  errors  which  were  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  heretical,  and  suffered  death  at  the  stake. g 

*  W.  Nang.  cont.  112.  See  above,  ing  regions,  but  that  they  were  at 
p.  167.  a  P.  262.  length  driven  to  Greece.  (See  Giese- 

b  Schwab,  459.  c  P.  248.  ler,  II.  iii.  208.)  Some  of  them  who 

d  Vol.  vi.  430 ;  vol.  vii.  91-2.  went  into  Sicily  turned  Mussulmans. 

e  Antonin,  iii.  306.  He  says  that  Wadd.  1318.  8  ;  Hefele,  vi.  509. 
the  party  was  long  numerous  in  the  f  A.  D.  1331.  Wadd.  1331.  10-11. 

mark  of  Ancona  and  in  the  neighbour-  £  E-g->  Baluz.  Vita  I.  Innoc.  VL 


480 


MENDICANT  ORDERS. 


Book  VIII. 


But  besides  these  more  violent  differences,  the  order 
came  to  be  divided  into  various  classes — one  of  which 
was  styled  zoccolanti ,  from  wearing  wooden  shoes  like 
the  peasantry.11  'At  length  was  established  the  great 
division  into  conventuals — those  who  lived  together  in 
their  societies — and  observants ,  who  professed  especial 
regard  for  the  integrity  of  the  Franciscan  rule.1  This 
latter  section,  although  it  had  undergone  some  persecu¬ 
tion  at  an  earlier  date,  was  acknowledged  by  the  council 
of  Constance  ;k  but  we  find  in  later  times  many  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  jealousy  and  enmity  between  the  two  parties.1 

The  Franciscans,  partly  perhaps  by  way  of  compensa¬ 
tion  for  their  departure  from  the  founder’s  rule,  carried 
their  reverence  for  him  into  greater  and  greater  extrava¬ 
gances.  Among  other  things,  it  was  said  that  St.  Francis 
once  a  year  went  down  from  heaven  to  purgatory,  and 
released  all  who  had  died  in  the  habit  of  his  brother¬ 
hood.™  And  it  was  in  this  time  that  the  notorious 
‘  Book  of  Conformities  ’  was  produced,  and  was  approved 
by  the  authorities  of  the  order.11 

The  Dominicans,  too,  while  they  departed  from  the 
mendicant  ideal,  so  that  some  of  their  writers  maintained 
their  right  to  hold  property,0  were  excited  by  the  rivalry 
of  the  Franciscans  to  set  up  for  their  founder  pretensions 
which  are  clearly  blasphemous.  Thus  in  the  Life  of  St. 
Catharine  of  Siena,  written  by  her  confessor,  Raymond 
of  Capua,  who  was  afterwards  general  of  the  order,  the 


Vita  I.  Ben.  XII.  p.  205  ;  Vita  IV. 
Urb.  V.  ;  Rebdorf,  in  Freher,  i.  441. 
See  Gieseler,  II.  iii.  208;  and  p.  93, 
above. 

h  Schrdckh,  xxxiii.  128. 

1  See  Wadding,  1368.  10 ;  1384.  1, 
seqq. ;  1387.  1,  seqq.;  1390.  1,  seqq., 
etc. 

k  V.  d.  Hardt,  iv.  515;  Giesel.  II. 
i.  2x3-14. 

1  See  Wadding,  passim. 


m  Herm.  Corner,  in  Eccard.  ii.  1101. 
Wadding  says  of  this  story,  “Neque 
ilia  adeo  incredibilis  aut  nova  debet 
reputari,  ut  hseretica  aut  erronea  di- 
cenda  sit  ”(1378.  28;  cf.  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
305.)  It  was  condemned  by  the  coun¬ 
cil  of  Basel  in  1443.  Harzh.  v.  865 
Giesel.  II.  iv.  299. 
n  See  vol.  vi.  p.  118. 

0  See  Gieseler,  II.  iii.  204. 


Chap.  XI. 


THE  EUCHARIST. 


481 


almighty  Father  is  represented  as  producing  from  his 
head  the  coeternal  Son,  and  from  his  breast  St.  Dominic, 
declaring  that  his  adopted  son  Dominic  stood  on  an 
equality  with  the  only-begotten  Son,  and  carrying  out  a 
parallel  between  the  eternal  Word  and  the  founder  of 
the  order  of  preaching  friars.p 


III.  Rites  and  Usages. 

(1.)  In  matters  which  concerned  the  worship  of  the 
church,  the  same  tendencies  which  had  appeared  through¬ 
out  many  former  ages  were  still  continued,  and  it  was  in 
vain  that  the  more  enlightened  teachers  protested  against 
the  further  developments  of  popular  superstition  and  of 
exaggerated  ceremonials 

(2.)  The  festival  of  Corpus  Christi  was  established  by 
Clement  V.,r  and  further  privileges  were  connected  with 
the  celebration  by  Urban  VI.  and  Boniface  IX.3  The 
doctrine  embodied  in  this  festival  was  supposed  to  be 
confirmed  by  fresh  miracles,  although  some  of  these 
were  not  unquestioned,  or  were  even  admitted  to  be 
impostures.1 

The  number  of  masses  was  multiplied,  partly  as  a 
means  of  securing  fees  for  the  clergy.  Alvar  Pelayo  says 
that  St.  Francis  had  especially  wished  to  preserve  his 
order  from  this  temptation,  by  prescribing  that  no  one 
should  celebrate  more  than  one  mass  daily,  forasmuch  as 
a  single  mass  “  filled  heaven  and  earth  ;’;u  but  that  the 


p  “  Ego,  dulcissima  filia,  istos  duos 
filios  genui,  unum  naturaliter  gene- 
rando,  alterum  amabiliter  et  dulciter 
adoptando:’'  and  then  follows  the 
parallel.  Acta  SS.,  Apr.  30,  p.  9x3. 

1  See,  e.g,  d’Ailly,  De  Reformations, 
in  Gersou,  ii.  91 1. 

‘  See  vol.  vi.  p.  445. 

8  Rayn.  1389.  4. 

1  See  as  to  the  miracle  of  Wilsnack, 

VOL.  VII. 


above,  p.  312.  Duke  Albert  of  Austria 
informed  Benedict  XII.  that  in  the 
Austrian  town  of  Neirmiburch  (?)  a 
wafer  stained  with  blood  was  found,  and 
that  a  priest  confessed  to  having  put 
the  blood  on  it  (the  wafer  being  uncon¬ 
secrated),  in  order  to  throw  suspicion 
on  the  Jews  of  profaning  the  sacra¬ 
ment.  Rayn.  1338.  19. 
u  De  PI.  Eccl.  ii.  52,  in  Giesel.  279, 

31 


482 


COMMUNION  IN  BOTH  KINDS. 


Book  VIII. 


minorites,  in  disregard  of  their  founder’s  wishes,  eagerly 
caught  at  the  opportunity  of  gain.* 

The  withdrawal  of  the  eucharistic  cup  from  the  laity 
had  become  general,  although  a  special  exception  was 
sometimes  made  by  popes  in  favour  of  royal  personages ; 
as  was  the  case  with  the  kings  of  France — who,  however, 
availed  themselves  of  this  privilege  only  at  their  corona¬ 
tion  and  on  their  death-bed. y  In  England  both  the  king 
and  the  queen  at  their  coronation  received  the  sacrament 
in  both  kinds;  and  it  is  recorded  that  Henry  V.  did  so 
when  dying.2  The  story  of  the  emperor  Henry  VII. ’s 
death,  whether  true  or  false  as  to  the  alleged  poisoning, 
implies  that  the  emperors  were  then  accustomed  to 
communicate  in  the  eucharistic  cup.a 

In  Bohemia,  the  older  practice  remained  to  a  late 
period.  But  the  collisions  between  Bohemians  and 
Germans  in  the  university  of  Prague  tended  to  discoun¬ 
tenance  it,b  and  when  (as  we  have  seen)  the  usage  was 
revived  by  Jacobellus  of  Misa,  the  question  was  brought 
before  the  council  of  Constance  by  the  bishop  of  Leito- 
mysl.  Gerson  was  strongly  opposed  to  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  the  chalice.0  A  committee  drew  up  conclusions 
on  the  question,  allowing  that  according  to  the  Saviour’s 
institution  the  chalice  ought  to  be  administered,  but 
maintaining  that  the  church  had  both  authority  and 
reason  for  departing  from  the  original  method ;  and  in 


x  See  as  to  Paderborn,  above,  p.  465. 
y  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  328. 
z  Palmer,  Supplem.  to  Origines 
Liturgicse,  p.  83,  from  the  Liber  Re- 
galis,  which  is  of  Richard  II. ’s  time 
(ib.  56)  ;  Masked,  Monum.  Ritual. 
Angl.  iii.  pp.  liv.,  45.  Dr.  Pauli  quotes 
Elmham  and  the  Gesta  Henrici  as 
stating  that  Henry  V.  received  “  Do- 
minici  corporis  et  sanguinis  sacra- 
mentae,”  but  questions  whether  this  is 
to  be  literally  taken  (v.  174).  Con¬ 
sidering  what  we  know  of  other  cases, 


the  doubt  seems  to  be  needless,  and 
Walsingham,  who  says  only  “vivifici 
corporis,”  is  not  to  be  understood  as  con¬ 
tradictory,  but  merely  as  less  definite. 
a  See  vol.  vii.  p.  75. 
b  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  324,  seqq. 
c  Opera,  i.  457,  seqq.  “  Si  ad  pro- 
prietatem  locutionis  attendamus,  non 
proprie  sanguis  in  calice  bibitur,  sed 
sola  vini  species,  cum  sub  specie  vini 
eundem  modum  sanguis  Christi  habcat 
existendi  quern  habeat  omnimode  sub 
specie  panis.”  Col.  462. 


Chap.  XI. 


INDULGENCES. 


1&3 


accordance  with  this  report,  the  council  condemned 
Jacobellus,  an  I  forbade  the  practice/1 

(3.)  The  doctrine  of  indulgences,  as  it  had  been  stated 
by  Thomas  of  Aquino,  was  for  the  first  time  sanctioned 
by  papal  authority  in  the  bull  by  which  Clement  VI. 
proclaimed  the  jubilee  of  1350,®  and  from  that  time 
might  be  regarded  as  generally  established  in  the  church. 
The  use  of  these  privileges,  which  the  popes  dispensed 
at  will,  was  rapidly  developed.  Small  indulgences  were 
to  be  gained  every  day,  and  by  the  performance  of  very 
trivial  acts;1  and  the  greater  indulgences,  which  had 
originally  been  granted  for  the  holy  war  against  the 
Saracens,  were  now  bestowed  on  more  ordinary  con¬ 
siderations.  The  institution  of  the  jubilee  had  contri¬ 
buted  greatly  to  advance  the  popularity  of  indulgences  ; 
and  this  effect  became  still  greater  when  Boniface  IX. 
professed  to  extend  the  benefits  of  the  jubilee  to  those 
who,  instead  of  going  to  Rome  in  person,  should  visit 
certain  churches  in  their  own  neighbourhood,  and  should 
pay  into  the  papal  treasury  the  sum  which  a  Roman 
pilgrimage  would  have  cost  them.g  The  abuse  was 
carried  yet  further  by  allowing  the  privileges  of  a  jubilee- 
year  at  other  times, h  and  by  sending  into  all  countries 
“stationers”  or  “ qusestuaries  ”  to  offer  the  benefit  of 


d  Sess.  General,  xm.  (June  15, 1415), 
V  d.  Hardt,  iii.  586,  seqq.,  646  ;  iv. 
332-4 ;  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  358-9 ;  He- 
fele,  vii.  13.  Hus,  who  was  then  in 
prison,  was  greatly  distressed  by  this, 
and  wrote  in  favour  of  Jacobellus,  ib. 
336. 

e  Extrav.  Comm.  De  Poenit.  et  Re¬ 
miss.  c.  2;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  282-3.  See 
above,  p.  170. 

f  Giesel.  II.  iii.  284.  Gregory  X. 
having  ordered  that  the  head  should  be 
bowed  at  the  name  of  J esus  in  the  mass, 
some  councils  granted  ten  days’  indul¬ 
gence  for  so  doing  (Cone.  Aven.  a.  d. 
1326,  c.  4 ;  Cone.  Biterr.  a.d.  1352,  c.  1). 


So  the  council  of  Apt,  in  1365  (c.  2), 
gave  an  indulgence  of  twenty  days  for 
bending  the  knees  at  certain  words  in 
the  mass.  In  the  Register  of  R.  de 
Kellawe,  bishop  of  Durham,  (Chron. 
and  Mem.)  are  many  indulgences  of 
forty  days  for  praying  for  certain  per¬ 
sons — in  some  instances  for  their  wel¬ 
fare  during  life  as  well  as  for  their  sou's 
after  death.  s  See  pp.  228-9. 

h  “  Hoc  anno  (1392)  per  illustrissi- 
mum  principem  Steffanum  ducem  Ba- 
variae  annus  jubilaeus  a  sede  apostolica 
fuit  impetratus  et  in  civitate  Monaco 
peractus.”  Chron.  Elwacense,  in  Pertz, 
xvi. 


484 


ECCLESIASTICAL  CENSURES. 


Look  VIII. 


indulgences  at  every  man’s  door ;  and  from  these 
practices  a  general  corruption  of  ideas  as  to  morality 
naturally  resulted.1  Gerson  endeavoured  to  expose  the 
mistakes  of  the  system  ;  he  declared  that  the  Saviour 
alone  was  entitled  to  grant  some  of  the  privileges  which 
were  usually  proclaimed  by  His  ministers  on  earth  ; k 
but  the  popular  belief  was  commonly  proof  against 
enlightenment  on  a  matter  in  which  the  papal  doctrine 
was  so  wTell  adapted  to  the  desires  of  coarse  and  super¬ 
stitious  minds.1 

(4.)  While  the  church  was  lavish  of  its  graces,  it  was 
no  less  prodigal  of  its  censures ;  and  from  the  excessive 
employment  of  these  arose  a  general  disregard  of  them.m 
Froissart  mentions  an  incident  which  is  evidence  at  once 
of  the  contempt  into  which  such  sentences  had  fallen 
through  abuse,  and  of  the  independent  spirit  of  the 
English — that  when  the  Flemings  had  been  laid  under 
an  interdict  of  the  most  terrible  kind  for  siding  with 
Edward  III.  in  1340,  the  English  king  told  them  that 
they  need  not  be  uneasy,  “  for  as  soon  as  he  should 
again  cross  the  sea,  he  would  bring  them  priests  of  his 
own  country,  who  would  chant  masses  to  them,  whether 
the  pope  willed  it  or  not ;  for  he  was  well  privileged  to 
do  so.’;n  The  monastic  orders,  although  usually  leagued 


1  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  465-6;  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  284-6.  k  Opera,  ii.  514- 

1  It  is  said,  however,  that  Boniface 
IX.,  by  his  promiscuous  offers  of  indul¬ 
gences,  tempted  many  persons  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  gain  was  his  only  object,  and 
to  question  his  power  by  saying  that 
God  alone  could  do  away  with  guilt, 
and  that  indulgences  were  only  the 
remission  of  temporal  punishment — 
“  Dicere  non  timebant,  *  Anima  nostra 
nauseat  super  hoc  cibo  levissimo 
(Num.  xxi.  5).  Gobel.  Pers.  320. 

m  De  Ruina  Eccl.  8.  See  above,  p. 
72,  note  e.  A  council  in  1326  ordered 
“  ut  locus  non  interdicatur  pro  pecu- 


niario  debito  sine  sedis  apostolicae  li- 
centia  ”  (Cone.  Marciac.  c.  54)  ;  but 
we  are  told  that  in  1343  a  Jew  of  Mem- 
mingen,  being  unable  to  get  payment 
from  his  debtors,  begged  the  bishop  to 
interdict  the  place ;  and  that  the  bishop, 
being  deeply  in  his  debt,  consented  to 
do  so.  Joh.  Vitodur.  in  Eccard,  i. 
1899. 

n  C.  106,  t.  i.  290.  Edward  II.  had 
promised  the  clergy  that  he  would  not 
issue  letters  interfering  with  their  power 
of  excommunication,  “  nisi  in  casu  in 
quo  possit  inveniri  laedi  per  excom- 
municationem  regiam  libertatem.”  9 
Edw.  II.  stat.  i.  c.  1. 


Chap.  XI. 


FESTIVALS. 


435 


with  the  papacy,  did  much  to  nullify  the  force  of  inter¬ 
dicts,  by  leaving  doors  or  windows  open  while  the 
services  of  the  church  were  performed  in  their  chapels, 
so  that  the  people  standing  without  might  have  the 
benefit  of  their  privileged  offices.  Clement  V.,  in  order 
to  prevent  this  evasion,  charged  the  members  of  re¬ 
ligious  societies  to  conform  to  the  practice  of  the 
principal  church  in  every  place.0 

In  former  times,  popes  had  sometimes  chosen  the 
Thursday  before  Easter  as  a  day  for  pronouncing  curses 
against  persons  who  had  specially  opposed  or  offended 
them/  Towards  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century  it 
became  usual  to  repeat  on  that  day  such  sentences  as 
had  been  uttered  against  particular  offenders ;  and  hence 
in  the  following  century  grew  a  custom  of  denouncing 
on  Maundy  Thursday  a  general  anathema  against  all 
enemies  of  the  church. q 

(5.)  The  multiplication  of  saints  and  of  festivals 
continued,  although  not  without  protests  against  the  evil 
consequences  of  the  excess  to  which  it  had  been  carried. 
Archbishop  Islip  of  Canterbury,  in  1362,  complained  of 
the  bad  effects  which  resulted  from  the  observance  of 
too  many  holy-days,  and  put  forth  a  list  of  festivals, 
which,  although  reduced  from  the  number  before  ob¬ 
served,  amount  to  about  fifty  in  addition  to  the  Sundays 
of  the  year/  And  the  archbishop  describes  the  manner 


0  Rayn.  1310.  45. 

P  As  in  the  case  of  Paschal  II.  and 
the  emperor  Henry  V.,  a.d.  1102,  and 
of  Gregory  IX.  and  Frederick  II.,  a.d. 
1227.  So  the  envoys  of  Henry  II.  of 
England,  in  1171,  feared  that  Alex¬ 
ander  III.  would  excommunicate  their 
master  on  Maundy  Thursday,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  the  murder  of  Becket.  S. 
Thom.  Cant.  ed.  Giles,  vi.  200. 

Schrockh,  xxxi.  528  ;  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  297-8  ;  iv.  376. 

r  Spelman,  Concilia,  ii.  609.  He 


had  before  given  the  document  at  p. 
500,  as  issued  by  abp.  Mepham,  in 
1332  ;  and  so  it  appears  in  Wilkins,  ii. 
560.  The  name  of  Simon  is  common 
to  the  two  archbishops  ;  but  the  men¬ 
tion  of  another  Simon  (Sudbury)  as 
bishop  of  London,  and  the  date  “  nos- 
trae  consecrationis  anno  XIII.”  (which 
Wilkins  would  amend  by  reading 
“quinto”),  show  that  Islip  was  the 
author.  In  1346,  a  council  at  Prague 
prescribed  about  the  same  number  of 
holy-days  (Mansi,  xxvi.  91),  but  where 


FESTIVALS. 


Cook  VIII. 


486 


of  keeping  these  days  as  marked  by  coarse  debauchery 
and  misrule.  Cardinal  d’Ailly,  at  a  later  time,  complains 
that  the  festivals  were  turned  into  occasions  of  dissipa¬ 
tion,  whereas  the  working-days  were  not  sufficient  for  a 
labouring  man  to  earn  his  bread ;  and  he  suggests  that, 
except  on  Sundays,  it  should  be  allowed  to  work  after 
Having  attended  the  religious  service  of  the  day.s  In 
like  manner  Nicolas  of  Clemanges  speaks  of  the  number 
of  festivals  as  excessive,  and  denounces  the  idleness, 
drunkenness,  and  other  vices  to  which  they  were  com¬ 
monly  perverted.1  He  also  criticizes  severely  the  ser¬ 
vices  which  had  been  drawn  up  for  some  of  the  newer 
festivals,  and  complains  that  the  worship  of  God  was 
neglected  for  that  of  the  saints — that  the  reading  of 
legends  had  superseded  that  of  Scripture  in  the  offices  of 
the  church.11  Cardinal  Zabarella,  Henry  of  Hesse,  and 
other  divines  of  the  age,  bear  evidence  to  the  manner  in 
which  festivals  were  abused,  and  urge  that  the  number  ot 
them  should  be  reduced.*  On  the  other  hand,  however, 
Gerson  proposed  that  a  festival  should  be  instituted  in 
honour  of  St.  Joseph,  the  husband  of  the  Saviour’s 
mother  •  and  thus  to  him  is  due  the  origin  of  a  celebra¬ 
tion  which  has  in  later  times  been  raised  into  greater 
importance  by  the  overflow  of  the  reverence  directed  to 
the  blessed  Virgin.? 


as  the  only  saint  unknown  to  Scripture 
in  the  English  list  is  Thomas  of  Canter¬ 
bury  (whose  translation  is  commemo¬ 
rated  as  well  as  his  martyrdom),  the 
Bohemian  list  has  many  such.  The 
Conception  of  the  B.  V.  is  in  the  Eng¬ 
lish  list,  but  not  in  the  other.  The 
Prague  canon  allows  work  to  be  done 
after  mass  on  some  days.  For  other 
lists  of  festivals,  see  Cone.  Tarracon. 
a.d.  1329,  c.  12;  Cone.  Benev.  a.d. 
1378,  c.  63;  Abp.  Arundel,  a.d.  1400, 
in  Wilkins,  iii.  52  ;  Cone.  Herbipol. 
a.d.  1407,  c.  22  ;  a.d.  14x1,  c.  4  (Harz- 


heim,  v.) ;  Concilia  Scotiae,  74. 

8  De  Reform,  in  Cone.  Const.,  ap. 
Gerson,  ii.  911. 

4  “  De  novis  celebritatibus  non  insti- 
tuendis.”  Opp.  i.  143-7. 
u  lb.  156-9. 

x  Z abar.  in  V.  d.  Hardt,  i.  514  ; 
Henr.  de  Hassia,  quoted  by  Gerson, 
Opp.  i.  40.  See  the  proposals  for  re¬ 
form  at  Constance,  V.  d.  Hardt,  i. 
733- 

y  See  Gerson,  iii.  842,  seqq. ;  iv.  729, 
731,  seqq.,  and  his  ‘Josephina’  (a 
poem  of  about  3000  hexameters),  iv. 


Chap.  XI. 


FESTIVALS  OF  ST.  MARY. 


487 


To  the  festivals  in  honour  of  St.  Mary  were  added 
those  of  the  Visitation  and  the  Presentation — the  former 
commemorating  her  visit  to  her  cousin  Elizabeth;2  the 
latter,  a  supposed  presentation  or  dedication  by  hex 
parents  at  the  age  of  three  months,  from  which  time  it 
was  imagined  that  she  was  brought  up  in  the  Temple 
until  her  espousal  to  Joseph  at  the  age  of  eleven.a  Thus 
the  number  of  festivals  consecrated  to  the  blessed  Virgin 
was  extended  to  seven. 

The  festival  of  her  Conception  made  way  continually. 
In  England  it  was  established  in  1328  by  archbishop 
Mepham,  who  wrongly  referred  the  origin  of  it  to  his 
predecessor  St.  Anselm  ;b  in  France,  the  observance  of  it 
was  decreed  by  the  French  “nation”  in  the  university  of 
Paris  in  1380.°  The  doctrine  of  the  immaculate  concep¬ 
tion  became  almost  universal,  except  in  the  Dominican 
order.  The  Franciscans  had  at  first  been  divided  as 
to  this  doctrine,  some  of  them  (as  Alvar  Pelayo)  deny¬ 
ing  it  ;d  but  the  opposition  of  the  Dominicans  decided 
the  course  of  the  rival  order,  who  became  enthusiastic 
advocates  of  the  Immaculate  Conception.6  At  Paris, 


743  ;  Lenfant,  Cone,  de  Pise,  II.  ii.  31. 
St.  Joseph’s  day  (March  19)  was  made 
a  festival  of  obligation  by  Gregory  XV. 
in  1621,  and  was  confirmed  by  Urban 
VIII.  in  1642.  (Alban  Butler,  March 
19.)  It  was  made  a  festival  of  nine 
lessons  by  the  general  chapter  of  the 
Franciscans  in  1399  (Wadd.  1399.  7), 
and  a  cardinal-legate,  in  1414,  sanc¬ 
tioned  the  keeping  of  it  in  the  provinces 
of  Reims,  Sens,  and  Rouen,  on  the 
ground  that  it  had  been  introduced 
elsewhere.  Baluz.  Miscell.  iii.  in. 
See  Acta.  SS.,  Mart.  19,  p.  7 ;  C. 
Schmidt,  in  Herzog,  v.  97. 

z  Walsingh.  ii.  207 ;  Bonifac.  IX. 
(referring  to  Urban  VI.  as  having  in¬ 
tended  the  like),  in  Rayn.  1389.  3; 
Andr.  Ratisbon.  in  Pez,  IV.  iii.  595  ; 
Acta  SS.,  Jul.  2,  p.  264  ;  Joh.  Hagen, 


in  Mart.  Coll,  Ampl.  i.  1579. 

a  Niceph.  Callisti,  ii.  3,  p.  134,  ed. 
Paris,  1630.  The  Presentation  was 
introduced  by  Gregory  XI.  in  1372. 
Schrockh,  xxxiii.  396. 

b  Wilkins,  ii.  552 ;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
273.  For  the  groundlessness  of  this, 
see  vol.  v.  p.  417. 

c  Giesel.  II.  iii.  273.  Thierry,  abbot 
of  New  Corbey,  enjoined  the  observ¬ 
ance  of  the  festival  on  all  who  were 
subject  to  him,  a.d.  1357,  alleging  as 
a  special  reason  that  miracles  had 
lately  shed  lustre  on  it.  Martene, 
Coll.  Ampl.  i.  1471. 

d  De  Planctu  Eccl.  ii.  52,  ap.  Gie¬ 
sel.  II.  iii.  274. 

e  It  is  told  of  the  Franciscan  St. 
Bernardine  of  Siena:  “Testatur  B. 
Joannes  Capistranus,  quoties  de  B. 


DISPUTES  ON 


Book  VIII. 


4S8 


the  university  was  swayed  in  behalf  of  this  doctrine  by 
the  authority  of  the  great  Franciscan,  Duns  Scotus;* 
and  when  John  of  Monyon  (or  de  Montesono),  a  Spanish 
Dominican,  disputed  against  it  at  Paris,  in  1387,  he  was 
condemned  as  heretical  by  the  university,  as  well  as  by 
the  bishop  of  Parish  On  appealing  to  Clement  VII.,  he 
found  himself  opposed  at  Avignon  by  a  deputation  from 
the  university,  headed  by  Peter  d’Ailly;h  and,  finding 
that  his  cause  was  going  against  him,  he  pretended  to 
submit,  but  secretly  withdrew  to  his  native  kingdom  of 
Aragon,  where  he  joined  the  obedience  of  the  rival  pope, 
and  wrote  in  support  of  his  claims.  1  His  excommunica¬ 
tion  by  Clement  followed  ;k  but  while  the  Franciscans 
maintain  that  this  was  on  account  of  his  doctrine,  the 
Dominicans  contend  that  it  was  wholly  caused  by  his 
defection  from  the  party  of  Clement.1  The  university 
took  up  the  matter  strongly ;  it  was  decreed  that  no  one 
should  be  admitted  to  a  degree  except  on  condition  of 
swearing  to  the  late  decision,  which,  although  directed 
only  against  the  absolute  denial  of  the  doctrine,  was 
soon  interpreted  as  positively  favourable  to  it.m  The 
academics  compelled  William  of  Valence,  a  Dominican, 
who  was  bishop  of  Evreux  and  confessor  to  the  king,  to 
give  up  the  defence  of  John  of  Mon  yon,  and  to  subscribe 
their  formula  ;  and  the  king  resolved  to  have  no  more 


Virgine  prsedicabat,  faciem  ejus  tan- 
quam  Seraphin  solari  fulgore  irradiari 
et  igniri  solitam.”  Wadd.  1380.  8. 
f  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  362. 

8  Gerson,  i.  644  ;  Juv.  des  Urs.  6 2  ; 
Mansi,  in  Raynald.  t.  vii.  501  ;  Mo- 
nach.  Sandionys.  1.  viii.  c.  8  ;  Bui.  iv. 
618  ;  D’Argentre,  I.  ii.  61,  seqq.;  Nat. 
Alex.  xv.  234,  seqq.  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
274-5- 

h  Mon.  Sandion.  1.  ix.  c.  2.  D'Ailly’s 
speeches  and  tract  against  John  of 
Mongon  are  in  Gerson,  i.  698,  seqq.,  and 
in  D’Argentrd,  I.  ii.  66,  seqq.  The  de¬ 


puties  were  sworn  to  confine  themselves 
to  their  proper  business,  and  not  to  look 
after  benefices.  Mon.  Sandion.  t.  i. 
5i4- 

1  lb.  516;  Raynald.  1389.  15,  17; 
1391.  24-6. 

k  D’Argentre,  I.  ii.  131,  147. 

1  Qudt.  and  Echard,  i.  693.  Juvenal 
des  Ursins  says  that  he  was  sentenced 
to  return  to  Paris  and  to  retract  pub¬ 
licly,  and  that  he  promised  to  do  so, 
but  absconded  by  night.  66.  See 
Baluz.  VV.  Pap.  Aven.  i.  1375,  521-2. 

111  See  Giesel.  II.  iii.  276. 


Chap.  XI. 


THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION. 


489 


Dominican  confessors.11  The  Dominicans  were  shut  out 
of  the  university  for  fourteen  years;0  they  AD 
were  persecuted  by  the  bishops  and  by  the  H01- 
secular  authorities ; p  and,  in  consequence  of  having  taken 
the  unpopular  side,  they  were  unable  even  to  walk  the 
streets  without  being  molested,  while  verses  in  ridicule 
of  them  were  publicly  placarded.11  Miracles  were  alleged 
in  behalf  of  the  immaculate  conception :  as  that  a 
Dominican  of  Cracow  was  struck  dead  while  preaching 
against  it  j*  and  that  as  Scotus  was  on  his  way  to  main¬ 
tain  the  honour  of  the  blessed  Virgin  in  the  schools,  an 
image  of  her,  which  he  passed,  was  accustomed  every 
day  to  bend  its  head  in  token  of  favour.8  St.  Bridget 
brought  to  the  same  cause  the  support  of  her  revelations; 
but  on  this  point  her  authority  was  confronted  by  that  of 
the  other  great  prophetess  of  the  age,  St.  Catharine  of 
Siena,  who  held  that  the  cleansing  of  the  Virgin’s  nature 
did  not  take  place  until  the  soul  was  infused  into  the 
body.1 


IV.  Arts  and  Learning. 

(1.)  The  fourteenth  century  saw  the  perfection  of 
Gothic  architecture  and  the  beginning  of  its  decline, 
although  as  yet  this  decline  had  not  advanced  far.  But 
in  the  meantime  the  other  arts  were  springing  into  a 
new  life.  Italian  painting  advanced  at  one  step  from 
the  elementary  rudeness  of  Cimabue  to  the  schools  of 


n  D’Argentre,  I.  ii.  132;  Mon.  San¬ 
ction.  t.  i.  582 ;  Bui.  iv.  633. 

9  D’Argentre,  I.  ii.  147-8  ;  Mon.  San¬ 
ction.  t.  i.  578  ;  But.  v.  82. 

P  Walsingh.  ii.  187. 

<J  Mon.  Sanction,  t.  i.  74,  490  ;  Juv. 
des  Urs.  63. 

r  Ptol.  de  Lignamine,  in  Eccard,  i. 
i3QI- 

8  Vita  Joh.  Duns  Scoti,  Opp.  L  ix, 
ed.  Lugd.  1639. 


*  See  extracts  from  both  in  Giesel.  II. 
iii.  272-3.  Catharine’s  view  agrees  with 
that  of  the  Dominican  St.  Vincent 
Ferrer,  Serm.  de  Sanctis,  pp.  20-1. 
Gerson  was  strongly  in  favour  of  the 
immaculate  conception.  Eg.,  Opera, 

ii.  35  ;  iii.  1317,  seqq.  He  considers 
the  doctrine  to  be  one  which  had  been 
revealed  to  the  church  in  later  days. 

iii.  1330. 


490 


UNIVERSITIES. 


Book  VIII. 


Giotto,  Orcagna,  and  the  masters  whose  combined  labours 
embellished  the  Campo  Santo  of  Pisa ; u  and  while  the 
productions  of  Italy  were  carried  into  other  lands,  to  ex¬ 
cite  the  devotion  of  believers  and  to  serve  as  examples 
for  imitation, x  a  native  style  of  art,  admirable  for  religious 
feeling  and  for  sober  richness  of  colour,  began  to  appear 
in  the  Netherlands,  under  the  leadership  of  the  brothers 
Van  Eyck.  In  sculpture,  too,  attempts  were  now  suc¬ 
cessfully  made  to  shake  off  the  stiffness  of  Gothic  art ; 
perhaps  the  best  known  example  of  the  newer  style  is 
to  be  found  in  the  bronze  gates  of  the  Baptistery  at 
Florence,  which  were  begun  by  Andrew  of  Pisa  in  1330, 
and  completed  by  Ghiberti  in  the  following  century.y 
(2.)  The  number  of  .universities  was  greatly  increased 
during  the  fourteenth  century.  Among  those  then  founded 
were  Orleans,2  Erfurt,  Prague,  Vienna,  Heidelberg,3 
Cracow,  Pisa,b  Perugia, c  Florence, d  Pavia, e  and  Ferrara.1 
In  some  of  these  there  were  at  first  the  faculties  of  arts, 
medicine,  and  law,  to  which  theology  was  afterwards 
added ; g  and  in  some  of  the  older  universities,  as  at 
Bologna,11  a  like  addition  was  now  made  to  the  original 
foundation.  The  university  of  Rome  was  dormant 
throughout  the  time  of  the  Avignon  papacy ;  and,  al- 


u  Cimabue  was  born  in  1240,  and 
died  in  1302  ;  Giotto  was  born  in  1276, 
and  died  in  1336.  It  now  appears  that 
it  is  a  mistake  to  connect  the  names  of 
Giotto  and  Orcagna  with  the  paintings 
of  the  Campo  Santo.  Crowe-Caval- 
caselle,  i.  341,  452. 

x  The  Gesta  Abbatum  S.  Albani  re¬ 
cord  that  abbot  Thomas  (1349)  “  dedit 
tabulam  in  Lombardia  pictoratam,  su¬ 
per  majus  altare  situatam,  45^.  10s.  8 d. 
pro  eadem  et  ejus  cariagio  a  Londo- 
niis  et  aliis  ejus  pertinentibus  primi- 
tus  persolutis.”  (iii.  381.)  The  por¬ 
trait  of  Richard  II.  in  Westminster 
Abbey  is  supposed  to  be  by  an  Italian 
who  visited  England. 


7  G.  Villani,  x.  176  ;  Tiraboschi,  v. 
570-1.  Ghiberti  was  born  in  1381.  His 
labours  on  the  Baptistery  gates  began 
about  1401,  and  the  work  of  the  eastern 
gates  was  incomplete  at  his  death  in 
1456.  Vasari,  iii.  132  ;  Walks  in  Flo¬ 
rence  by  Susan  and  Joanna  Horner, 
i-  29-33. 

2  Bui.  iv.  101. 

a  Andr.  Ratisb.  in  Pez,  IV.  iii.  576. 
b  Tirab.  v.  62. 
c  lb.  76. 

d  M.  Villani,  i.  8  ;  vii.  90  ;  ix.  58,  etc. 
e  Pet.  Azorius,  in  Murat,  xvi.  406. 
f  Chron.  Est.,  a.d.  1391,  ib.  xv.  524. 
e  Andr.  Ratisb.  1.  c. 
b  A.D.  1362.  Tirab.  v.  50. 


Chap.  XI.  ORIENTAL  STUDIES.  49 1 

though  revived  for  a  time  by  Innocent  VII.,  it  again  fell 
into  decay,  until  Eugenius  IV.  restored  it  in  143 id 

In  consequence  of  the  erection  of  universities  in  Ger¬ 
many  and  other  northern  countries,  the  resort  of  students 
to  Paris  was  much  diminished,  so  that  few  foreigners 
were  now  to  be  found  among  them.  But  the  great 
French  university  continued  to  maintain  its  reputation 
as  a  school, k  and  was  led  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
schism  to  exercise  such  an  influence  in  the  affairs  of  the 
church  as  was  altogether  without  example.  Oxford  had 
greatly  advanced  in  importance,  and  there  William  of 
Wykeham  introduced  a  new  architectural  character 
into  collegiate  buildings,  and  furnished  an  example  of 
a  society  more  clerical  and  monastic  than  the  colleges 
which  had  before  existed.1 

(3.)  The  decree  by  which  Clement  V.,  at  the  instance 
of  Raymund  Lully,  prescribed  the  teaching  of  Oriental 
languages  in  certain  places,  has  already  been  mentioned. m 
But  in  whatever  degree  it  may  have  been  carried  out,n 
the  schools  which  it  contemplated,  as  they  were  intended 
only  for  missionary  purposes,  did  not  promote  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture.  The  fourteenth  century, 
however,  could  boast  Nicolas  de  Lyra,  tins  first  man 
who  for  many  hundreds  of  years  had  endeavoured  to 
bring  Hebrew  learning  to  bear  on  this.  It  has  been 
supposed  that  Nicolas  (whose  surname  was  drawn  from 


'  Th.  Niem,  ii.  39 ;  Gregorov.  vi. 
665-7. 

k  Gerson  mentions  a  saying  of  John 
of  Gaunt :  — “  Dux  de  Lancastre  dicebat 
antiquo  domino  Burgundiae,  ‘  Habemus 
in  Anglia  viros  subtiliores  in  imagina- 
tionibus,  sed  Parisienses  veram  habent 
solidam  etsecuramtheologiam.’  Nota,” 
adds  Gerson,  “  quod  cavendum  est  ne 
mala  theologia  et  curiosa  hanc  universi- 
tatem  invadat,  sicut  in  Anglia  et  in 
Praga.”  Sermo  coram  Rege,  Opera, 


ii.  149. 

1  Pauli,  iv.  687. 

m  Vol.  vi.  p.  377. 

n  At  Oxford  it  took  effect  for  a  short 
time  (Ant.  Wood.  ed.  Gutch,  i.  394, 
401).  But  altogether  it  seems  to  have 
fallen  into  disuse,  and  a  reforming 
committee  at  the  council  of  Constance 
proposed  that  it  should  be  observed  as 
to  the  institution  of  an  oriental  school 
in  the  place  of  the  pope’s  residence. 
V.  d.  Hardt,  I.  x.  603. 


492 


NICOLAS  DE  LYRA. 


Book  VIII. 


his  native  place,  a  village  in  Normandy)  was  a  Jew  by 
descent ;  but  for  this  there  seems  to  be  no  foundation 
except  the  fact  of  his  acquaintance  with  Hebrew.  He 
became  a  Franciscan  in  1291,  taught  theology  for  many 
years  at  Paris,  was  provincial  of  his  order  in  Burgundy, 
and  died  in  1340.0  His  Postills  extend  over  the  whole 
Bible,  and  were  greatly  prized.  He  held  that  in  Holy 
Scripture  there  are  four  senses — the  literal,  the  allegorical^ 
the  moral,  and  the  anagogical ; p  that  the  literal  sense  is 
presupposed  in  the  others,  and  must  be  the  foundation 
of  them ;  that  from  it  alone  proofs  should  be  drawn, 
and  that  any  mystical  interpretation  which  is  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  letter  is  unbecoming  and  worthless ;  and 
he  strongly  blames  those  expositors  who  had  smothered 
the  literal  sense  under  their  figurative  interpretations.*1 
These  principles  were  called  in  question,  about  a  century 
later,  by  Paul,  bishop  of  Burgos,  a  convert  from  Judaism 
and  a  member  of  the  Dominican  order,  who  blamed 
Nicolas  for  preferring  his  own  interpretations  and  those 
of  the  Jewish  writers  to  the  authority  of  the  fathers  and 
of  the  great  Dominican  St.  Thomas  ;r  but  Nicolas  did 
not  lack  defenders,  and  his  commentaries  continued  to 
be  highly  esteemed. 

(4.)  The  study  of  Greek  was  now  revived,  and  became 
common  in  the  west,  where  it  was  promoted  by  learned 
Greeks,  such  as  Barlaam,  Leontius  Pilatus  (who  taught 
both  Petrarch  and  Boccaccio  at  Florence),8  and  at  a 


0  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  125.  Trithemius 
supposes  him  an  Englishman  (De 
Script.  Eccl.  p.  309).  John  of  Winter¬ 
thur  styles  him  “  solemnis  doctor,  ple- 
nus  dierum.”  Eccard,  i.  1920. 
p  Litter  a  gesta  docet ;  quid  credas,  alle¬ 
go  ria  ; 

Moralis,  quid  agas ;  quo  tendas,  ana- 
gogia.” 

Q  See  extracts  from  his  Prologue  in 
Giesel.  II.  iii.  270-1. 


r  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  132-5. 

8  Tirab.  v.  92-3,  394,  seqq. ;  401-5; 
De  Sade,  i.  406 ;  Gibbon,  vi.  245-8. 
Hallam,  Hist.  Litt.  i.  13.  Petrarch 
mentions  both  Barlaam  (under  whom 
he  studied  at  Avignon)  and  L.  Pilatus 
as  his  teachers.  Senil.  xi.  p.  981  ; 
Variar.  21.  See  Hody,  De  Grsecis 
illustribus,  etc.,  Lond.  1742;  Tirab. 
v  398-9. 


Chap.  XI. 


CLASSICAL  STUDIES — SCHOLASTICISM. 


493 


later  time  Manuel  Chrysoloras,  the  master  of  Leonard 
of  Arezzod  The  first  professorship  of  Greek  in  the  west 
was  established  at  Florence  about  1360,  through  the 
influence  of  Boccaccio,  and  Pilatus  was  appointed  to  the 
chair,  which  in  1396  was  held  by  Chrysoloras.u  The 
study  of  the  classical  Latin  authors  was  also  pursued 
with  a  new  spirit,  and  great  exertions  were  made  for  the 
recovery  of  writings  which  had  long  been  unheeded. 
In  the  writing  of  Latin,  attempts  were  made  by  Petrarch 
and  others,  instead  of  following  the  traditional  style  of 
the  middle  ages,  to  imitate  the  refinement  of  the  classics; 
and  this  study  was  afterwards  carried  further  by  Poggio 
Bracciolini.x  Albertin  Mussato  wrote  Latin  tragedies 
on  the  ancient  model — one  of  them  having  Eccelino  da 
Romano  for  its  principal  characters 

(5.)  The  scholastic  philosophy  is  considered  to  have 
entered  on  a  new  stage  with  Durandus  of  St.  Poui^ain, 
bishop  of  Meaux,  and  William  of  Ockham,  the  famous 
English  Franciscan,  whose  political  treatises  have  been 
already  mentioned.2  Durandus  (who,  from  his  readiness 
in  solving  all  questions,  was  styled  the  Most  Resolute 
Doctor3)  was  a  Dominican,  and  as  such  was  originally 
a  zealous  adherent  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  but  afterwards 
strongly  opposed  his  authority,  especially  with  regard  to 
the  manner  in  which  Divine  grace  operates ;  for  while 
Aquinas  holds  that  this  is  through  the  sacraments,  Duran¬ 
dus  maintains  that  it  is  by  the  immediate  action  of  God.b 


1  Leon.  Aretin.  in  Murat,  xix.  gig  ; 
Sozom.  Pistoriens.  ib.  xvi.  1168  ;  Gib¬ 
bon,  vi.  248-9 ;  Hallam,  Midd.  Ages,  U. 
323  ;  JEn.  Sylv.  p.  535;  Poggiusin  Fu- 
nere  Leon.  Aret.  ap.  Baluz.  Miscell.  iv. 
9-10.  See  Nicol.  Florent.  Elogium  in 
Mart.  Coll.  Ampl.  iii.  730-1.  There  is 
much  information  as  to  the  cultivation 
of  Greek  in  the  epistles  of  Ambrose  Tra- 
versari  of  Camaldoli,  printed  in  the 
same  volume.  For  him  see  Hallam, 
Hist.  Litt.  i.  141 ;  Rcumont,III.  i.  303. 


Chrysoloras  died  at  Constance  during 
the  sittings  of  the  council,  April  15, 1415, 
and  is  buried  in  the  Dominican  church. 
Lenf.  i.  176.  See  Tirab.  vi.  127-31. 
u  Ib.  v.  402,  405. 

x  Hallam,  Hist.  Litt.  i.  no,  115  ; 
Gregorov.  vi.  659-61. 

y  This  is  in  Muratori,  t.  x. 
z  Pp.  102-4.  See  Haureau,  c.  xxviii. 
*  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  190. 
b  Giesel.  II.  iii.  232-3. 


494 


SCHOLASTICISM. 


Book  VIII. 


These  teachers  were  noted  for  their  want  of  reverence 
for  authority  ;c  and  they  revived  the  philosophical  opinion 
of  nominalism,  which  had  been  dormant  from  the  time  of 
its  unsuccessful  originator,  Roscellin.d  Ockham  rejected 
the  idea  which  St.  Anselm  and  others  had  cherished, 
of  finding  a  philosophical  basis  for  the  doctrines  of  the 
church,  which  he  regarded  as  matters  of  pure  revelation  ; 
and  this  revelation  he  supposed  to  be  still  exerted  in 
behalf  of  doctrines  which  had  not  been  known  to  the 
primitive  church. e  Thus,  in  discussing  the  question  of 
the  eucharist,  he  states  three  opinions,  of  which  one  is 
“  that  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine  remains,  and  that 
in  the  same  place,  under  the  same  appearance,  is  the 
body  of  Christ ; ”f  and  he  says  that  this  theory  “  would 
be  very  reasonable,  unless  there  were  a  determination  of 
the  church  to  the  contrary,  because  it  salves  and  escapes 
all  the  difficulties  which  follow  from  the  separation  of  the 
accidents  from  the  subject/’  Yet  he  prefers  the  current 
opinion,  that  “  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine  ceases 
to  be,  while  the  accidents  only  remain,  and  under  them 
the  body  of  Christ  beginneth  to  be;’;  and  he  adds,  “This 
is  made  certain  to  the  church  by  some  revelation,  as  I 
suppose,  and  therefore  it  hath  so  determined.  ”8  The 
philosophy  of  Ockham  was  condemned  and  prohibited 
at  Paris  in  1339  ;  but  this  sentence  increased  its  fame, 
and  before  the  end  of  the  century  the  nominalism  which 
had  at  first  been  so  strongly  denounced  had  come  to  be 
generally  accepted.11 

(6.)  The  unbelieving  philosophy  which  from  the  be- 


c  Giesel.  II.  iii.  232. 
d  lb.  235.  For  Roscellin,  see  vol. 

v.  p.  98. 

e  Giesel.  II.  iii.  236. 
r  So  John  of  Paris  taught.  See  vol. 

vi.  p.  440. 

g  See  the  extracts  in  Gieseler,  II.  iii. 
236.  In  like  manner  card.  d’Ailly  says 
— “Multo  probabilius  esse,  et  minus 


superfluorum  miraculorum  poni,  si  in 
altari  verus  panis  verumque  vinum, 
non  autem  sola  accidentia  esse  adstrue- 
rentur,  nisi  Ecclesia  determinasset  con- 
trarium.”  Ib. 

h  Mosh.  ii.  643;  Giesel.  II.  iii.  238. 
Wyclif  always  speaks  respectfully  of 
William  of  Ockham.  Shirley,  Introd. 
to  Fascic.  Zizan.  53. 


Chap.  XI.  CASUISTRY — TRANSLATIONS  OF  SCRIPTURE.  495 


ginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  had  existed  in  secret, 
began  to  appear  more  openly.  Petrarch  mentions  some 
votaries  of  this  kind  of  philosophy  whom  he  had  met  with 
at  Venice,  and  describes  them  as  regarding  all  learning  ex¬ 
cept  their  own,  whether  sacred  or  profane,  with  contempt.1 

(7.)  The  science  of  casuistry  now  came  into  favour  as 
a  branch  of  theological  study.  The  cases  of  John  Petit 
and  of  John  of  Falkenberg,  which  involved  the  defence 
of  tyrannicide, k  afforded  much  exercise  for  the  subtleties 
of  the  casuists  ;  and  in  the  case  of  Petit  it  is  said  that 
the  doctrine  of  “probability  ”  occurs  for  the  first  time — 
a  doctrine  which,  as  it  was  afterwards  developed  by  the 
Jesuits,  supplied  Pascal  with  matter  for  some  of  his  most 
effective  assaults  on  that  order.1  The  complaints  which 
had  been  made  in  former  times  as  to  the  unprofitable 
nature  of  the  studies  which  were  most  popular,  and  of 
the  pursuit  of  learning  for  low  and  unworthy  ends,  are 
renewed  by  Gerson  and  others  in  this  age.m  The  great 
work  of  rendering  the  Holy  Scriptures  into  the  vulgar 
tongue,  with  which  Wyclif’ s  name  is  associated,  engaged 
the  labours  of  many  others  in  the  different  western 
countries  ;  so  that  there  were  translations,  more  or  less 
complete,  into  French,  Italian,  German,  and  Flemish.11 
These  translations  were,  indeed,  all  in  so  far  defective 
that  they  were  made  from  the  Latin  Vulgate ;  but  they 
tended  to  prepare  for  the  more  satisfactory  works  which 
were  to  result  from  that  revived  study  of  the  original 
languages  which  had  already  begun.  It  is  remarkable  that 


*  Senil.  v.  3,  p.  877  ;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
241. 

k  See  pp.  400-3. 

1  Schrockh,  xxxiv.  31;  Giesel.  II.  iii. 
263.  • 

m  Gerson  *  Contra  vanam  Curiosita- 
tem’ ;  ‘Contra  Curiositatem  Studen- 
tium ’  (t.  1).  Against  astrology,  lb. 
189,  seqq.  ;  Nic.  Clemang.  de  Studio 
Theologise,  in  D’Achery,  i.  473,  seqq. ; 


Giesel.  II.  iii.  241.  Andrew,  bishop 
of  Megara  (for  whom  see  Book  IX.  c. 
ii.),  in  1434  speaks  of  universities  as 
“  quasi  perditae  et  annullatae,”  and  as 
needing  reform  by  a  council  (V.  d. 
Hardt,  vi.  200).  He  adds  that  young 
men  will  not  now  study  in  universities, 
but  betake  themselves  to  the  Roman 
curia,  as  more  profitable.  Ib.  206. 
n  Schrockh,  xxxiii.  311-12. 


496 


VERNACULAR  LITERATURE. 


Book  VIII. 


Gerson,  in  censuring  “  vain  curiosity,”  recommends  that 
vernacular  translations  of  the  Bible  should  be  forbidden, 
at  least  with  the  exception  of  the  moral  and  historical 
portions.0 

(8.)  The  same  age  which  produced  these  attempts  to 
bring  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  writings  within  the  reach 
of  the  less  educated  classes,  was  also  distinguished  by  the 
rise  of  a  brilliant  vernacular  literature  in  various  countries, 
especially  in  Italy  and  in  England.  To  this  day,  Dante, 
Petrarch,  Boccaccio,  and  Chaucer  hold  their  place  among 
those  great  authors  whose  writings  need  no  antiquarian 
considerations  to  recommend  them  to  our  study,  but  live 
by  their  own  enduring  vigour  and  interest.  In  the  four¬ 
teenth  century,  also,  John  Villani  produced  the  first  im¬ 
portant  historical  work  which  was  composed  in  the  modern 
language  of  Italy ;  and  Wyclif,  by  the  treatises  which  he 
addressed  to  the  unlearned  classes  of  his  countrymen, 
earned  a  title  to  be  regarded  as  the  earliest  master  of 
English  prose. 

0  Opp.  i.  105 ;  cf.  459 ;  Schwab,  317-18. 


END  OF  VOL.  VII, 


Watson  and  Hazell,  Printers,  London  and  Aylesbury. 


